The Assembly met at 10.30 am (Mr Speaker in the Chair).
Members observed two minutes’ silence.

Senior Civil Service Review

Mr Speaker: I have received notice from the Minister of Finance and Personnel that he wishes to make a statement on the Senior Civil Service review.

Dr Sean Farren: With your permission, Mr Speaker, I would like to make a statement on behalf of the Executive about the independent review report ‘Appointment and Promotion Procedures for the Senior Civil Service of the Northern Ireland Civil Service’ and the intention to open it up for public consultation.
The Executive agreed in late 2000 to commission an independent review. The review became a formal commitment in the Programme for Government that signified the importance which the Executive place on ensuring equality of opportunity for all. The review team, under the chairmanship of Lord Ouseley, was formally commissioned by the then Minister of Finance and Personnel, and the team commenced work in March 2001.
Lord Ouseley is managing director of Different Realities Partnership Ltd and a former chairman of the Commission for Racial Equality. The team comprised: Rosheen Callender, national equality secretary of the Services, Industrial, Professional and Technical Union (SIPTU); Dr Trefor Campbell, managing director of Moy Park Ltd; Sir Bob Cooper, former chairperson of the Fair Employment Commission; Judith Eve, chairperson of the Civil Service Commissioners for Northern Ireland; Prof Gerry McKenna, vice-chancellor of the University of Ulster; and Dr Monica Wilson, chief executive of Disability Action.
The team operated under the terms of reference that had been agreed by the Northern Ireland Executive as follows: to review the effectiveness of current policies, practices and procedures concerning appointment to, and promotion within, the Senior Civil Service to ensure that they facilitate the business objectives of Ministers and Northern Ireland Departments by providing for the timely and efficient filling of posts with appropriate staff; to promote the Northern Ireland Civil Service (NICS) goal of being fully representative of the community that it serves by tackling under-representation in the NICS as quickly and as effectively as possible; to address any identified obstacles to fair participation by all sectors of the community; to match best practice in other major public and private sector bodies in Northern Ireland and beyond; to examine the roles of officials and Ministers at each stage of the selection process; to consider the appropriate level of independent involvement, taking account of the statutory role of the Civil Service Commissioners for Northern Ireland, in recruitment and selection processes; and to make recommendations.
Although retirement age is not referred to explicitly in the terms of reference for the review, the then Minister of Finance and Personnel, Mark Durkan, asked the review team to consider that matter and to take into account the possible implications for the entire NICS.
The independent review team submitted the report in March 2002, and the Executive considered it in May. The report is wide-ranging, and I am grateful to the team for the work it has undertaken in presenting its findings and recommendations. The team has conducted a thorough analysis during which it consulted with key stakeholders, called for a range of presentations on NICS practices, sought statistical analysis and external validation of the analyses and called for equal opportunities information from New Zealand to provide a benchmark.
My Executive Colleagues and I welcome the report, which contains 25 recommendations. They include two recommendations on retirement age; given that they have implications for the entire NICS, not only the Senior Civil Service, I have decoupled them from the report and will treat them as a separate issue. Two further recommendations are outside the legislative competence of the devolved Administration, and they will be raised directly with Whitehall Ministers. They are: recommendation 4, that the Secretary of State should seek to ensure that the Civil Service Commissioners for Northern Ireland are fully representative of Northern Ireland society; and recommendation 22, that the UK Government should be urged to introduce appropriate legislative change in relation to the nationality requirements that are imposed on those Civil Service jobs that are classed as public service posts. Therefore, 21 substantive recommendations must be considered. However, one recommendation is overarching as it refers to the need to develop an implementation action plan.
The review lasted longer than had originally been expected. That was due to difficulties in aligning members’ diaries for meetings and also to the fact that the task was more complex than had been anticipated.
During the review the team commented on the dynamic nature of the environment in which the NICS operates and the progress that had been made. Consequently, many of the specific recommendations deal with areas where work is already under way or where it is planned to meet legislative change or business need. The Executive agreed that officials should continue to progress, or initiate, action on the majority of the recommendations and that challenging targets for the achievement of those recommendations should be set out in the action plan, which will form an integral part of the further consultation process.
There are two recommendations that we believe need careful consideration through further consultation before any action is taken. The first is the recommendation that all Senior Civil Service vacancies be externally advertised. A range of equal opportunities and business considerations will be identified in the consultation paper, on which various stakeholders will wish to express their views.
The recommendation on early action to reduce the long-hours culture of the Senior Civil Service needs to be considered in a similar way. The review team believes that culture to be a serious obstacle to participation across all the section 75 groups. There are a range of legal and business issues that will be considered in the consultative paper.
The Executive, having considered the report, have decided to issue a consultation paper, which will include a detailed draft action plan on those recommendations on which action is under way and on which comments would be welcome, and request specific comments and views on the two recommendations I have highlighted — external advertising of all Senior Civil Service vacancies and long-hours culture.
At least 12 weeks will be devoted to public consultation, and the report will be published on the Internet. To allow for the holiday period, public consultation will start in July and will be completed by 31 October. I have arranged for copies of the report to be placed in the Assembly Library today. Once public consultation is completed, any equality impact assessment required in respect of proposed policy changes will be taken forward, subject to normal screening.
The Executive welcome the report and wish to make early progress on its implementation. They recognise that many of the issues raised by the review are complex and challenging. It is, therefore, important to hear what interested stakeholders have to say on the issues associated with the recommendations and action plan. Further consultation will enhance and maintain the progression towards equality of opportunity for all in respect of appointment and promotion procedures for the Senior Civil Service.

Mr Francie Molloy: I welcome the Minister’s statement on the review and thank the review team for the work that it has done.
In view of that fact that the review has taken longer than anticipated, can the Minister give any indication about the implementation of those aspects of the review that can be brought about immediately? Has he had any indication from Westminster regarding the timescale of the nationality question and how it could be resolved?

Dr Sean Farren: I welcome the Member’s compliments to the review team, who worked exceedingly hard. As I said, that work will be recognised in the contents of the report. It has been a complex task.
I said that it is our intention, with respect to many of the recommendations, to develop an implementation plan and to proceed with it as soon as possible. So the answer is essentially about the ongoing implementation of the recommendations that the plan will seek to address from now on. Indeed, as I said, some of the recommendations relate to actions that are already under way. However, I also said that we are not saying that, in the course of the consultation, we do not want to hear views regarding those recommendations that are already being acted on. We welcome views, comments and further recommendations regarding those particular aspects of the plan that might attract the attention of particular groups and individuals.
There is a willingness in Whitehall to address the nationality issue. It is a matter of finding parliamentary time to do so. To underline the urgency with which we want the matter addressed, after today’s statement I will be communicating with my Whitehall counterparts to ensure that action is taken to address the issue through the required legislative change as soon as possible.

Mr Roy Beggs: Does the Minister accept that all Northern Ireland citizens are treated impartially with regard to opportunities within the Civil Service whether they carry a British passport or an Irish one? Given that there is no discrimination against local citizens on grounds of nationality, why should they face additional outside competition from other European countries for appointments to the Senior Civil Service?
How will the Minister ensure that the high reputation of the Civil Service is protected against the perceived poor practice that occasionally occurs in the Republic of Ireland and other European countries?

Dr Sean Farren: To answer the third question, there are adequate controls in place to ensure that the integrity of the Civil Service is maintained to the highest standards. Where any shortcomings are revealed with respect to those controls, steps will be taken immediately to address them. It is my experience that the highest standards do obtain, and I have no reason to question them. Members can rest assured that everything is done to ensure that those standards are maintained.
To answer the first question, arising from the spirit of the Good Friday Agreement, posts in the Northern Ireland Civil Service should be open to people of nationalities other then British. It is a curious anomaly that Ministers can come from the other part of this island and exercise ministerial authority with no inhibitions on their attaining their posts, notwithstanding their nationality. The same opportunity should be extended to those who seek posts at the highest level in the Civil Service. When, rather than if, candidates of other nationalities can apply, they will have to meet the same standards and criteria as all others who seek appointment at that level.
The statistics contained in the annexes to the review team’s report show a fairly dynamic pattern with regard to community affiliation and gender in the Senior Civil Service. The dynamic is in the right direction with respect to the balance between Roman Catholics and Protestants and between males and females. That is to be welcomed. If the Member’s question implied discrimination, I would point out that the review team in no way highlights discrimination in any form, and it comments favourably on the dynamic.

Mr Eamonn ONeill: The Minister’s statement is a clear indication of his, and the Executive’s, commitment to ensuring equality of opportunity by opening up the Senior Civil Service to everyone, regardless of religion, gender, physical well-being or ethnic origin.
The Minister said that work is already under way in some areas covered by the recommendations. Given the proposed consultation exercise, is that not premature? How does he propose to deal with the recommendations on the age of retirement, which he has decoupled from the report?

Dr Sean Farren: With regard to the Member’s first question, many of the review team’s recommendations relate to building on the equality of opportunity work taken forward to date by the Northern Ireland Civil Service. Given that that principle is central to devolution — indeed, it is enshrined in section 75 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998 — all of us want to promote the concept of a Civil Service that is seen by all whom it serves to be open and inclusive and which is staffed by those who can best meet the business challenges of providing support to the devolved Administration. That will be facilitated by early action on many of the report’s recommendations. It will enable the Northern Ireland Civil Service to build on the work to date in developing what almost all observers regard as robust and equitable processes and procedures.
The draft action plan and timetable will be drawn up to show progress and plans for implementation, and that will form part of the consultation process. Consultees will be provided with a clear indication of the direction proposed to implement the majority of the recommendations made by the review team. As I have already underlined, in adopting that approach consultees will have the opportunity to confirm that the proposals are acceptable, or, if otherwise, that there are other issues to consider in relation to the action plan.
With respect to the recommendations on the age of retirement, I indicated that I decoupled them simply because they affect the Civil Service as a whole. Proposals on the age of retirement for the Northern Ireland Civil Service are currently being formulated and will be brought forward separately to the Executive in the autumn, given that the implications are Civil Service-wide and not exclusive to the Senior Civil Service. The review team’s two relevant recommendations will, therefore, be considered in bringing those proposals forward. I stress that the trade unions will be fully engaged in all discussions on the matter.

Mr Edwin Poots: It must be put on record that the elusive report has not been made available to Members — copies are neither in the Assembly Library nor in the Business Office. It is therefore difficult to discuss it. Nevertheless, I have some questions.
The Minister referred to the dynamic swinging in the right direction. Between 1985 and 1999, the Civil Service has swung from 58·6% Protestant representation to 53·4%, and Catholic representation has increased from 41·4% to 46·6%. Those figures suggest that Protestants are under-represented in the Civil Service. How does the Minister expect that to impact on the Senior Civil Service? If Protestant representation in the junior ranks of the Civil Service is too low, it will impact on the Senior Civil Service in later years.
Will the Minister tell the House why there was only 42·3% Protestant representation in the former Department of Higher and Further Education, Training and Employment when he was the Minister and why there is only 45·9% Protestant representation in the Department for Social Development; 40·3% in the Social Security Agency (SSA); and 49·4% in the Child Support Agency (CSA)?
It is most inappropriate for a Minister to have so little confidence in his own civil servants that he believes that he must go out of the country to recruit people with the necessary quality and integrity to run Northern Ireland.

Dr Sean Farren: I assure the Member that the appointment of civil servants does not rest in my hands. The Executive must ensure that equality of opportunity is available to all.
The nationality issue is pertinent and must be addressed. The record shows that many people from Northern Ireland have availed of the opportunity to rise to senior posts in the Civil Service in the South of Ireland. I see no reason why we should not open up posts in our Civil Service to people from other jurisdictions, and we should not be afraid to do so. That is a matter of equality and, as the review team recommended, it is being addressed. It is important to remember that my statement was about a report that a review team has submitted to the Executive. We welcome many of its recommendations and have found that they are in line with our thinking.
Mr Poots referred to the composition of the statistics. It is important that we note the dynamic in the Senior Civil Service and that we welcome a Senior Civil Service that broadly reflects the balance in our community. Section 75 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998 requires us to consider not only religious affiliation and gender, which are the most significant categories and foremost in people’s minds when they address the composition of labour forces, but also other categories. We are obliged to consider disability, sexual orientation, race and other important categories.
The review team examined not only the dynamic of the Senior Civil Service but the composition of lower Civil Service grades. There is an imbalance — incipient, in some respects — in lower Senior Civil Service grades, particularly with respect to Protestant males. There would be concern if that imbalance were to gather momentum. As a member of a political party that was founded in the context of the civil rights movement and was informed by civil rights issues, I would be concerned if there were a dynamic in reverse to that that has emerged recently. Therefore, we shall address the matter as part of the equality agenda of the entire Civil Service.

Mr Kieran McCarthy: I welcome the report, but I am disappointed that it has taken so long to present it to the Assembly. The report was not in the Library this morning, and Members have little opportunity to discuss a document that they have not seen. When will the report be available?
Mr ONeill asked about retirement age, a point that I mentioned to the Minister on several occasions. I cannot understand why the matter was not included in the terms of reference initially, but I am grateful to Mr Durkan for ensuring its inclusion later.
I am concerned that the two recommendations have been decoupled from the report. Will that not delay the resolution of this important matter until a decision is made? In the meantime, people will be forced out of the Civil Service against their will. I hope that Civil Service employees who are approaching the age of 60 will be encouraged to stay at work rather than be hounded out.

Dr Sean Farren: I shall place a copy of the report in the Library today. I trust that Members will study it and express their views, individually or at party level. I do not intend to inhibit debate on the issues. During the forthcoming 12-week consultation period, Members will be able to deliberate on the report and the associated consultation document, which will be published by the beginning of July.
As regards decoupling, I hasten to assure Mr McCarthy that the issue of the age of retirement is not intended to create further delay. That matter applies to the entire Civil Service; however, the review is about the Senior Civil Service in particular.
(Mr Deputy Speaker [Mr McClelland] in the Chair)
The retirement age issue applies to the entire Civil Service, and it is appropriate that the matter should be decoupled. It is not appropriate to suggest that my predecessor belatedly added the issue to the terms of reference — it was there from the outset. The retirement age issue must be considered in that context; it did not suddenly arise when the review was established. There has been lively debate on the matter. It was important to bear the issue in mind, as the review could have, and has, shed some light on it. The matter must be addressed urgently, and I have given a commitment that the Executive will consider the proposals in the early autumn. I hope to be able to come to the Assembly then with proposals on how the issue should be addressed in the future.

Mrs Annie Courtney: The SDLP strongly endorses the report’s recommendation that the nationality criterion be dropped. There should be no bar on anyone from entering the Senior Civil Service. The issue has been live for some time, and I urge the Minister to continue to press it with the United Kingdom Government. The Minister said that there is willingness in Whitehall to consider that viewpoint. How does he intend to raise the matter with the Westminster Government?

Dr Sean Farren: The need for change in the nationality legislation has been brought to the attention of the UK Government. They have indicated their keenness to open up civil employment under the Crown. I have commissioned definitive legal advice on the question of nationality from the departmental solicitors’ office. It is my intention to write to the Secretary of State without delay to advise him of the recommendation made by the independent review team and to seek his commitment to a change to the nationality legislation being introduced by the UK Government as a matter of priority.

Mr Seamus Close: Does the Minister agree that the Executive appear to be indulging in foot-dragging over the report’s implementation? The report was commissioned in 2000; the review team submitted its report in March 2002; and it seems to have lain around for a couple of months, as the Executive only considered it in May. It is the middle of June, and the report has only now come to the House.
Paragraph 1.12 of the report states that
"Consultation also played an important role. The team consulted with a range of stakeholders, including Ministers, Trade Unions, The Equality Commission, umbrella groups representing the Section 75 categories, the DFP Committee, Permanent Secretaries".
I could go on. Many people have been consulted, and we are now told that there is to be further consultation and that implementation will not take place until goodness knows when. Will it even happen this year? I detect foot-dragging. Would it not be better for the Minister to implement the report straight away?

Dr Sean Farren: I get tired listening to the same hollow complaint from Mr Close. How much consideration has the Committee given to the review team’s work? I understand that the Committee — of which Mr Close is a member — met Lord Ouseley once, but he was unable to have a second meeting with it. What does that say about that Committee’s consideration of the issues? Mr Close had the opportunity to pursue the matter vigorously. I do not take kindly to being chided by Mr Close, given the — [Interruption].

Mr Donovan McClelland: Order.

Dr Sean Farren: I do not take kindly to that, given the record of the Committee, of which Mr Close is a member, on addressing the issue. It may not have been his fault, but we must consider the way in which the Committee has deliberated on the issue before criticising the review team. The review team was asked to carry out some work. There were some difficulties about the timetabling of meetings. The team thought that the matter required greater deliberation than was at first deemed necessary; hence, the length of time that it took to complete the review. When the review team reported, the Executive deliberated on the matter as expeditiously as possible.
An implementation plan is being prepared on many of the recommendations. Three recommendations in particular are being highlighted for further consultation. The recommendations on retirement age, the nationality issue and the composition of the Civil Service Commissioners for Northern Ireland are being treated separately for reasons that I have already outlined. Progress will not be delayed.
Mr Close raised the issue of wide consultation. Yesterday, he attacked the suggestion that there should be general consultation on issues that concern the working of the Executive and the Administration. His approach to consultation is exclusive and elitist. He believes that only certain sections of society should receive consultation documents and be invited to submit their views.
Yesterday, I rejected the suggestion that we should be anything but fully transparent in the consultation process. I shall remain committed to such an approach as long as I have any responsibility for consultation, especially consultation on such fundamental issues as equality of opportunity. I make no apology for holding a full public consultation, and I reject the suggestion that we should be elitist, selective or include only certain groups, as Mr Close advises us to do.

Mr Arthur Doherty: The Minister made it clear that it is appropriate that the Senior Civil Service be open to all nationalities. Therefore, will he join me in wishing the members of the Republic of Ireland senior soccer service, many of whom perform at the highest level in the English League, all the best in their match today?

Dr Sean Farren: Our Senior Civil Service performs to the highest standards, and I am sure that the Irish team will play to the highest standard today. I trust that the House will join me in extending good wishes to the Irish team, which I understand will take to the pitch in Japan in just over one hour. I trust that there will be some rejoicing over lunch.

Budget (No. 2) Bill: First Stage

Dr Sean Farren: I beg leave to lay before the Assembly a Bill [NIA 16/01] to authorise the issue out of the Consolidated Fund of certain sums for the service of the year ending 31 March 2003; to appropriate those sums for specified purposes; to authorise the Department of Finance and Personnel to borrow on the credit of the appropriated sums; to authorise the use for the public service of certain resources (including accruing resources) for the year ending 31 March 2003; and to repeal certain spent enactments.
Bill passed First Stage and ordered to be printed.

Mr Donovan McClelland: The Bill will be put on the list of future pending business until a date for its Second Stage has been determined.
I have received notice from the Chairperson of the Committee for Finance and Personnel that the requirement of Standing Order 40 has been fully met in terms of appropriate consultation. It is therefore in order for the Budget (No 2) Bill to proceed with accelerated passage.

Strategic Planning Bill: First Stage

Mr Peter Robinson: I beg to lay before the Assembly a Bill [NIA 17/01] to make further provision in relation to the regional development strategy for Northern Ireland.
Bill passed First Stage and ordered to be printed.

Mr Donovan McClelland: The Bill will be put on the list of future pending business until a date for its Second Stage has been determined.

Railway Safety Bill: Consideration Stage

Mr Donovan McClelland: To enable Members to speak to the Bill, I shall take the vote on clause 1 separately, by leave of the Assembly. I also intend to group the remaining clauses for the questions on stand part, followed by the two schedules and the long title.
Clause 1 (Safety of railways)

Mr Mark Robinson: The Chairman of the Committee for Regional Development has asked me to extend his apologies for not being able to attend today’s debate. He has asked me to speak on behalf of the Regional Development Committee. I begin by expressing the Committee’s thanks to those who gave evidence to the Committee. I also express the Committee’s gratitude to the departmental officials who made themselves readily available, often at short notice, throughout the Committee’s deliberations.
As Members will be aware, the Railway Safety Bill is primarily technical in nature. It is, none the less, an important piece of legislation that has major safety implications for our railway network. The importance of the legislation cannot be underestimated, particularly when we look at the recent rail accident at Downhill and, indeed, other accidents such as the unfortunate death of a contract worker on the railway track at Sydenham in February of this year. Such accidents serve only to reinforce the need for exacting standards of rail safety.
Mr Deputy Speaker, during the Committee’s deliberations on the Railway Safety Bill, it noted that the Bill will enable several important pieces of secondary legislation to be brought forward. In particular, clause 1 of the Bill provides for existing legislation to be used to introduce railway safety regulations. Under article 17 of the Health and Safety at Work (Northern Ireland) Order 1978, the Department will have the power to require rail operators to prepare safety cases. That is to be welcomed. A safety case approach will require Northern Ireland Railways (NIR) to conduct a rigorous audit of all its plant infrastructure and machinery, including its trains. The Minister is to be praised for ensuring that the safety cases will be closely scrutinised. His Department has reached an agreement with the Health and Safety Executive whereby the railway inspectorate will act as agents to scrutinise and approve each risk assessment and safety case. That will undoubtedly contribute to ensuring that safety cases are carefully prepared and closely monitored.
As the basis of the legislation is the requirement for railway operators to provide safety cases, it is important that the safety case regulations are swiftly implemented, particularly in the light of recent accidents. I note that during the Second Stage debate the Minister stated that the safety case regulations will require NIR, in particular, to undertake quite a bit of work before it has prepared a detailed safety case.
Therefore, I ask the Minister to monitor the situation closely to ensure that NIR completes the work as soon as possible. The Committee for Regional Development had no amendments to the Railway Safety Bill and agreed unanimously with all its clauses and schedules.

Mr Pat McNamee: Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. I do not oppose the Bill, but I wish to make some comments on it. I welcome the principle of introducing railway safety legislation, given that the existing legislation is Victorian-based and does not attend to today’s health and safety standards.
Concerns were raised about the Bill, notably by Translink and by Transport 2000. One of the initial concerns was that an opportunity had been missed to introduce substantial legislation. The Bill is enabling legislation; it does not contain detail. Detail will be provided by secondary legislation in the form of Statutory Rules.
I shall make a general comment on the use of Statutory Rules as a means to introduce legislation. Statutory Rules will be used to introduce the detail required to ensure that rail safety is addressed properly by legislation. However, Statutory Rules are not subject to the same level of scrutiny by Committees or the Assembly as Bills that are introduced through the Assembly’s legislative process. I question whether that is the correct way for the Assembly to deal with legislation — to pass enabling legislation and then have the detail to be provided by Statutory Rules. I shall comment briefly on the Bill itself.

Mr Donovan McClelland: Mr McNamee, I remind you that we are considering clause 1 rather than the entire Bill.

Mr Pat McNamee: Clause 1 sets out the substance — or lack of substance — of the Bill. It sets out the Bill’s overall position. That is what I am speaking to, as opposed to the detail.

Mr Donovan McClelland: Please continue.

Mr Pat McNamee: I am not speaking to any of the other clauses or their content. I am speaking on the general nature of the Bill, which is covered by clause 1.
The Bill generally reflects the system in GB. Some concerns were raised about the application of the safety case system were there to be fragmentation of the rail network. I refer to paragraph 5 of the explanatory and financial memorandum, which states:
"Furthermore effective rail safety legislation would have to be in place before a Public Private Partnership, which would involve the private sector operating trains in Northern Ireland could be introduced. We could not risk the profit motive tempting the private sector to cut corners on safety measures."
The explanatory notes refer to an issue regarding public-private partnerships. Concern was raised that if there is a fragmentation of the operation of the railway, and there are contractors who have sub-contractors, and sub-contractors who have subsequent sub-contractors, a difficulty would arise in identifying who was responsibe for safety issues.
It is also clear that the Bill does not identify how safety auditing would be carried out on the safety cases and who would be responsible for ensuring that operators actually carry out the risk assessments, as provided for in their safety case. The Bill also fails to identify who would monitor whether operators are taking remedial action to deal with any problems identified by the risk assessment.
Those are my main concerns. When the detail of the Bill is introduced in the form of Statutory Rules, the Assembly will have an opportunity to study it.

Mr Billy Hutchinson: I support the Bill. Has good practice in the safety of railways throughout the world been looked at? Japan springs to mind, and the speed of the trains there. Football teams are using the bullet train to get from their bases to the grounds. Will the Minister join with me in supporting England in the match tomorrow against Nigeria? I hope that the team wins and reaches the last 16.

Mr Donovan McClelland: I think that that is stretching it a bit.

Mr Billy Hutchinson: On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. You allowed an SDLP Member to speak in the debate on the Budget (No2) Bill without saying anything about a budget.

Mr Donovan McClelland: I do not take points of order at this stage, Mr Hutchinson, as you well know.

Mr Billy Hutchinson: I represent the Business Committee —

Mr Donovan McClelland: I shall not take points of order now, Mr Hutchinson. I call the Minister to respond.

Mr Billy Hutchinson: You never mentioned anything —

Mr Donovan McClelland: Mr Hutchinson, Order.

Mr Billy Hutchinson: I raise —

Mr Donovan McClelland: You may raise a point if you wish, Mr Hutchinson, but you will not disturb the business of the House once more. I call Mr Peter Robinson.

Mr Billy Hutchinson: You should behave even-handedly.

Mr Donovan McClelland: Will you repeat that, Mr Hutchinson?

Mr Billy Hutchinson: You should behave even-handedly.

Mr Peter Robinson: I thank Mr Mark Robinson for his kind comments and the Committee for its support for the Bill. It was analysed seven times and given clause-by-clause consideration, so it has been looked at thoroughly.
In my statement to the House yesterday on the accident at Downhill on 4 June, I showed how important the Bill is to enhancing railway safety here. Last month’s crash at Potter’s Bar, which followed another major accident on the mainland, and the recent fatality on the Bangor line show the need for a focused legislative and operational approach to modern, safe travel by railway.
We were fortunate that the outcome of the Downhill derailment was not more serious. The Assembly will agree that we shall not have a culture of complacency on safety matters on our railways. I thank Northern Ireland Railways for its positive contribution to the development of the Bill and the secondary legislation that will follow. I urge it to complete its safety case. Although there have been criticisms about the control of railway safety in Great Britain, none has been directed at the safety case concept. Rather, criticisms have been directed at the fragmented nature of the railway industry there.
Mr Mark Robinson asked about the secondary legislation that will flow from the Bill, and that was also raised by another Member. I assure Members that I have no plans to change the integrated way in which the rail industry is operated here. I am convinced that the best way to ensure safety on our railways is by introducing a safety case regime along the GB model.
The safety case Regulations will follow as soon as possible after the Bill becomes law, allowing NIR the necessary time to finalise its safety case and have it thoroughly examined. I also thank Mr Mark Robinson for his comments on the measures that my Department has taken to ensure that all safety cases developed here are rigorously examined.
I shall deal with the issue of the Bill’s being enabling legislation. That is one of its inherent strengths. Those who have had ministerial responsibility may have been — at least, they will be by now — frustrated by the length of the legislative process and how long it takes for a Bill to come before the House. I shall outline the number of Statutory Regulations that flow from the Bill, and I assure Members that the Committee for Regional Development will thoroughly examine all the secondary legislation.
In addition to the Railways (Safety Case) Regulations, my Department will introduce other Regulations that will flow immediately from the Bill and will constitute further steps to assist NIR to provide a safe railway.
The Railways (Safety Critical Work) Regulations will seek to ensure that staff engaged in safety critical work, such as drivers and signalmen, are competent and fit and do not work for periods that are likely to result in fatigue. The Railway Safety Regulations will provide for train protection and warning systems to be fitted to all trains, and at key junctions and other danger points on the network.
As a result of the Railways (Approval of Works, Plant and Equipment) Regulations, new and altered works, plant and equipment, including locomotives and rolling stock, will be subject to approval by the Department.
The Railways Safety (Miscellaneous Provisions) Regulations will replace many old provisions that date back to 1842, covering the prevention of unauthorised access, for example, by fencing, the means of passenger communication on trains, the prevention of collisions and derailments through adequate signalling and braking systems and the prevention of accidents to staff, such as injury to trackside workers caused by moving trains.
The Private Crossings (Signs and Barriers) Regulations deal with the erection of signs and barriers at private crossings and are aimed at further improving the safety of the public at railway crossings.
Amendments will be made to RIDDOR — the Reporting of Injuries, Diseases and Dangerous Occurrences Regulations — to make them applicable to railways. Guidance on that matter will be prepared and published.
Detailed Regulations are being introduced. If we were to take them through by primary legislation, which would require two or three years in each case, many accidents could occur during the period of delay. This is a much speedier way to proceed.
As I said at the Bill’s Second Stage, I intend to consult the Committee for Regional Development on each set of Regulations. I shall also consult with other interested parties. The consultation process will commence in early summer.
I thank the Committee and the House for their consideration of this important Bill. I am sure that you, Mr Deputy Speaker, will join me in wishing the England football team every success. We hope that they travel safely to the game. I look forward to the Bill completing its Assembly Stages by the summer recess and to the introduction of the secondary legislation by the early autumn.

Mr Donovan McClelland: Does Mr Mark Robinson wish to respond?

Mr Mark Robinson: No. Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 1 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 2 to 9 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedules 1 and 2 agreed to.
Long title agreed to.

Mr Donovan McClelland: That concludes the Consideration Stage of the Railway Safety Bill. The Bill stands referred to the Speaker.

Amendments to Standing Orders

Mr Donovan McClelland: As the next two motions, to amend Standing Orders 10 and 18, relate to the same issue, I propose to conduct one debate. I shall call the Chairperson of the Committee on Procedures to move the first motion. Debate will then take place on both motions. When all who wish to speak have done so, I shall call the Chairperson to wind up and then put the Question on the first motion. I shall then ask the Chairperson formally to move the second motion and will put the Question on that motion without further debate.

Mr Conor Murphy: I beg to move:
Delete Standing Order 10 and insert new Standing Order:
"10. SITTINGS AND ADJOURNMENTS OF THE ASSEMBLY
(1) The categories of business to be conducted in the Assembly shall consist of the following:
(a) Assembly Business
(b) Executive Committee Business
(c) Committee Business
(d) Questions
(e) Private Members’ Business
(f) Private Business
(g) Adjournment Debates
(h) Party Business.
(2) Subject to the authority of the Business Committee to determine the time for commencement of business in plenary session the sittings of the Assembly shall be arranged as follows:
Monday 12.00 midday – 6.00 pm
Tuesday 10.30 am – 6.00 pm
The allocation of time for business within these sittings shall be determined by the Business Committee, except that
(a) on each Monday on which there is a sitting there shall be a period for Questions commencing at 2.30 pm and finishing at 4.00 pm;
(b) at the end of each sitting up to one hour may be set aside for an Adjournment Debate;
(c) any private notice questions shall normally be asked immediately before the Adjournment Debate.
(3) Where business on the Order Paper has not been disposed of by 6.00 pm on Monday, the Speaker may allow business to continue until 7.00 pm or until the outstanding business is completed, whichever is earlier. Consideration of business on the Order Paper not concluded by 7.00 pm shall be postponed until such a time as the Business Committee determines.
(4) If at 7.00 pm a division is in progress, or a question is being put and a division or a vote in the chamber results, adjournment of the Assembly shall be deferred until after the declaration of the result of the division or vote in the chamber.
(5) If Tuesday’s business cannot be completed in the allocated time, the sitting may be extended into the evening, into Wednesday, or both.
(6) Additional sittings may be arranged by the Business Committee according to the exigencies of the Assembly.
(7) Where statements made under Standing Order 18 impinge upon the time bands specified in this Standing Order the Speaker shall take action under Standing Order 18(5).
(8) An adjournment of the Assembly shall mean an adjournment until the next sitting day unless the Assembly, on a motion made by a Member of the Executive Committee after notice, has ordered an adjournment to some other definite date.
(9) A Session of the Assembly shall be that period from the commencement of business following the Summer Recess until the end of the subsequent Summer Recess. The Business Committee shall determine the dates for recess."
The following motion stood in the Order Paper:
In Standing Order 18(5) line 7 delete "Standing Order 10(3)" and insert "Standing Order 10(5)". — [The Chairperson of the Committee on Procedures (Mr C Murphy).]
The two motions form part of the Committee’s ongoing work on ensuring that the Assembly’s Standing Orders and procedures best meet its needs.
This is not an attempt by the Committee on Procedures to extend by the back door the sitting time on a Monday. Instead, it is intended to clarify existing Standing Orders and to introduce an addition to Standing Orders that will improve the way the Assembly conducts it business. There are two main changes to Standing Order 10. The first and substantive change relates to paragraphs 6 and 7 of Standing Order 10, which require business to be interrupted at 6.00 pm so that the Speaker can put the Question of whether business should continue. Members will know that it has become the convention that that requirement has not been enforced.
That requirement has been in Standing Orders since devolution, and it was taken from the Standing Orders at Westminster. Members will recognise that, at the time of devolution, we had little experience of how business could best be managed, and it was recognised at that time that it would be a case of amending Standing Orders as time progressed and experience highlighted their deficiencies or otherwise. Paragraphs 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10 are examples of Standing Orders that were considered to be necessary at that time, but in practice they have become redundant.
In consultation with the Business Committee and the Speaker about amending Standing Orders, it became clear that the opportunity should be taken to include a facility to allow scheduled business, if it has been delayed, to proceed beyond 6.00 pm. The proposal is to allow business to continue beyond 6.00 pm only on a Monday, and it applies only to scheduled business. That means that the Business Committee must plan business for a Monday on the basis of a 6.00 pm finish.
If the Business Committee decides that pressure of business is such that it will go on beyond 6.00 pm, a suspension of Standing Orders will continue to be required. This amendment to Standing Orders is designed to cater for those circumstances in which, for different reasons, business on the Order Paper has not been completed — for example, when business is unexpectedly delayed.
That may arise when there are a number of divisions, which on average take more than 15 minutes each, or when a Minister decides to make a statement. That is fine on a Tuesday because there is no pressure on time, as business can run on into Tuesday evening. However, on a Monday that is more difficult because business cannot proceed beyond 6.00 pm. Therefore, if a Minister wants to make a statement on a Monday when business is already anticipated to run until 6.00 pm then, because up to an hour can be allocated for questions in addition to the time that it takes to make the statement, some business may fall. Invariably, the business that is likely to fall is the final item on the Order Paper, which is normally the Adjournment debate.
The Committee on Procedures considers that that would be unfair to the Member who brought the Adjournment debate or to any other motion that fell in that way. Therefore, the Committee, with the support of the Business Committee and the Speaker, considers it reasonable that in such circumstances, where there is insufficient time before 6.00 pm to complete the remaining business, the Speaker should have the discretion to allow business to continue until 7.00 pm or until the outstanding business is completed — whichever is the earlier.
The Committee on Procedures also considers that the facility to allow business to go on until 7.00 pm is necessary because, in the near future, it proposes to amend Standing Orders to allow a Member to table, with the agreement of the Business Committee, an urgent motion for debate. The scenario envisaged is that, on a Monday morning, a Member might propose to table a motion for plenary debate on a matter of urgent public importance. The proposed amendment to Standing Orders would help to facilitate that by allowing business to proceed until 7.00 pm. If that facility had been available, it would have been used only once since the start of this session. Therefore, it is to be used only occasionally, when unforeseen business delays the scheduled business.
The second change proposed to Standing Orders is to clarify Standing Order 10(2). The proposed rewording is necessary to clarify the authority of the Business Committee to arrange an earlier start to Monday sittings. At present, Standing Order 10(2) sets out the days and times for which sittings of the Assembly should ordinarily be arranged and provides for the allocation of time for business within those sittings to be determined by the Business Committee. Clarity is required in order to define "ordinarily". The Business Committee has interpreted the word "ordinarily" to allow the plenary to start earlier than 12 noon on a Monday when the pressure of business forces it, although that has occurred only once during this session. That was endorsed by the Speaker in a ruling he made on 5 November 2001.
Members were confused about why it was necessary to suspend Standing Orders to proceed beyond 6.00 pm, yet it was unnecessary to suspend them to start before 12 noon. I shall not go into the detail of the reasons behind that, but there is currently no flexibility in Standing Order 10 to go beyond 6.00 pm on a Monday, unlike on a Tuesday when Standing Order 10(3) allows business to proceed beyond 6.00 pm and, if necessary, into Wednesday. Hence the suspension of Standing Order 10(2) is required.
It is important that Standing Orders are clear and that Members are in no doubt as to their meaning, and as such the Committee proposes the rewording of Standing Order 10(2), which clarifies the authority of the Business Committee to arrange an earlier start to a plenary sitting on a Monday.
The Committee has taken the opportunity of the consideration of Standing Order 10 to make several drafting changes to it. The first of those is in Standing Order 10(1), where a new category of business — Assembly Business — has been inserted. Items of business in that category would include petitions, Speaker’s rulings, et cetera.
Changes to Standing Order 10(2)(b) are proposed in order to reflect current practice. We have made it clear that at the end of each sitting up to one hour "may" be set aside for an Adjournment debate as opposed to "shall", in order to reflect the way in which business is managed.
In conclusion, I re-emphasise that changes to Standing Order 10 should not be viewed as an attempt to change the set finishing time of 6.00 pm on a Monday — 6.00 pm will continue to be the standard finishing time for the Business Committee when it plans business for a Monday. If the pressure of planned business is such that the sitting is required to go beyond 6.00 pm, a suspension of Standing Orders will continue to be required.
The second motion on the Order Paper is a consequential change to Standing Order 18. The change is proposed to reflect the new numbering in Standing Order 10.
I commend the motions to the Assembly.

Ms Jane Morrice: On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. I have several remarks to make on the motions. However, at this point I am able to speak only to the first motion.

Mr Donovan McClelland: You can speak to the first two motions.

Ms Jane Morrice: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I thank the Chairperson of the Committee on Procedures for outsmarting me by going out of his way to allay the fears that he probably expected me to raise, especially the potential to extend the hard-fought-for family-friendly hours, of which the Assembly, as a modern legislature, can rightly be proud. The Assembly agreed that there should be family-friendly hours, at least on a Monday.
I am pleased that the Chairperson has assured us that an extension beyond 6.00 pm will be used only occasionally, when there is a delay or some unscheduled business. The Women’s Coalition has always accepted that, under exceptional circumstances, time could, and should, be allowed after 6.00 pm. However, the most important issue is the hard-fought-for principle that the Assembly’s family-friendly hours should not be broken or disturbed in any way. Having listened to the Chairperson’s opening remarks, I believe that that is still the case.
At present, we start at 12 noon on a Monday, so rather than an extension beyond 6.00 pm, why can we not start business earlier? When we first sat, and when I was involved in the setting of the Standing Orders in the original Committee, the agreement was a 10.30 am start on Mondays. Travelling distances, party meetings, et cetera on a Monday morning suggested that that time should slip. Again, we are prepared to accept that. However, why slip to 12 noon? Why not have 11.00 am as the starting time, so that that extra hour between 6.00 pm and 7.00 pm could be made up in the morning? The family-friendly hours of the Assembly would, therefore, be preserved. The principle here is that Members have families that they should, could and would like to — whether they are men or women — go home to in the evenings in order to see their children before they go to bed. I am glad that the Chairperson of the Committee on Procedures has said that there is the potential for starting business earlier on a Monday morning and that only on rare occasions will the principle of the 6.00 pm finishing time be breached.

Mr Conor Murphy: The Committee has made the position clear, and I give the credit for outsmarting Ms Morrice to the Committee Clerks rather than to me, as they prepare the wording on these occasions.
Family-friendly hours are important. They are not only an issue for the Women’s Coalition. They are an issue for all Members. I have a young family. I am sure that many other Members in the Chamber also have young families and are, therefore, keen to continue with family-friendly hours. However, 6.00 pm might mean family-friendly hours for someone living in north Down or in south Belfast. For Mr Gerry McHugh, Mr Tommy Gallagher, Mr Derek Hussey or Mr Pat Doherty, for example, a 6.00 pm finish does not necessarily mean particularly family-friendly hours. By the time those people get home it is closer to 9.00 pm. Family-friendly hours benefit those who live fairly near to the Assembly, but they are not so much of a benefit to those who live far away.
The Committee has always been supportive of the principle of family-friendly hours. It is clear in the proposal that the ability to extend the time beyond 6.00 pm should be used in exceptional circumstances only, when the scheduled business has been delayed or interrupted and it is necessary to continue until it is finished or until 7.00 pm, whichever is the earlier. Certainly, that is the intention of the proposal.
Previously, the plenary did start at 10.30 am on Monday mornings. However, parties were under pressure because they had no time during the week to carry out internal party business, given that Committee meetings are held on Wednesdays and Thursdays and, indeed, on Fridays, when the Committee for Agriculture and Rural Development meets. It is difficult for larger parties to meet at a time when there is no other pressing Assembly business. A trial period was introduced in which the plenary began on Mondays at 12 noon. At the end of the trial period, the Committee on Procedures proposed to make the 12 noon start permanent, with the exception that the Business Committee can decide — as it did on only one occasion — that the plenary should start earlier. At that time, no party objected to business starting at 12 noon. It appears, therefore, that those arrangements are satisfactory, and the Committee on Procedures is still satisfied with them.
Of course, Standing Orders are open to change, and any Member can propose an amendment if he wishes. Standing Orders are constantly under review. Based on experience, the Committee is satisfied that the changes that it has proposed today will allow for the conduct of business on Mondays. The Committee is also content that the changes will facilitate the extension of business and that there is no need to start the plenary before 12 noon, other than in exceptional circumstances when the Business Committee so decides.

Mr Donovan McClelland: I remind the House that because the motion relates to amendments to Standing Orders, the vote requires cross-community support.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved (with cross-community support):
Delete Standing Order 10 and insert new Standing Order:
"10. SITTINGS AND ADJOURNMENTS OF THE ASSEMBLY
(1) The categories of business to be conducted in the Assembly shall consist of the following:
(a) Assembly Business
(b) Executive Committee Business
(c) Committee Business
(d) Questions
(e) Private Members’ Business
(f) Private Business
(g) Adjournment Debates
(h) Party Business.
(2) Subject to the authority of the Business Committee to determine the time for commencement of business in plenary session the sittings of the Assembly shall be arranged as follows:
Monday 12.00 midday – 6.00 pm
Tuesday 10.30 am – 6.00 pm
The allocation of time for business within these sittings shall be determined by the Business Committee, except that
(a) on each Monday on which there is a sitting there shall be a period for Questions commencing at 2.30 pm and finishing at 4.00 pm;
(b) at the end of each sitting up to one hour may be set aside for an Adjournment Debate;
(c) any private notice questions shall normally be asked immediately before the Adjournment Debate.
(3) Where business on the Order Paper has not been disposed of by 6.00 pm on Monday, the Speaker may allow business to continue until 7.00 pm or until the outstanding business is completed, whichever is earlier. Consideration of business on the Order Paper not concluded by 7.00 pm shall be postponed until such a time as the Business Committee determines.
(4) If at 7.00 pm a division is in progress, or a question is being put and a division or a vote in the chamber results, adjournment of the Assembly shall be deferred until after the declaration of the result of the division or vote in the chamber.
(5) If Tuesday’s business cannot be completed in the allocated time, the sitting may be extended into the evening, into Wednesday, or both.
(6) Additional sittings may be arranged by the Business Committee according to the exigencies of the Assembly.
(7) Where statements made under Standing Order 18 impinge upon the time bands specified in this Standing Order the Speaker shall take action under Standing Order 18(5).
(8) An adjournment of the Assembly shall mean an adjournment until the next sitting day unless the Assembly, on a motion made by a Member of the Executive Committee after notice, has ordered an adjournment to some other definite date.
(9) A Session of the Assembly shall be that period from the commencement of business following the Summer Recess until the end of the subsequent Summer Recess. The Business Committee shall determine the dates for recess."
Resolved (with cross-community support):
In Standing Order 18(5) line 7 delete "Standing Order 10(3)" and insert "Standing Order 10(5)".

Mr Conor Murphy: I beg to move:
In Standing Order 54(1) after paragraph (l) insert:
"(m) Those functions relating to the Planning Appeals Commission and the Water Appeals Commission transferred to the Office of the First Minister and Deputy First Minister by The Departments (Transfer of Functions) Order (Northern Ireland) 2001."
I say at the outset that the motion to amend Standing Orders has been moved at the request of the Committee of the Centre, which has asked for an extension to be made to its remit to allow it to examine certain functions relating to the Planning Appeals Commission and to the Water Appeals Commission.
That is because under the Departments (Transfer of Functions) Order (Northern Ireland) 2001, administrative responsibilities for the Planning Appeals Commission and the Water Appeals Commission transferred from the Department of Culture, Arts and Leisure, the Department for Regional Development, the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development and the Department of the Environment to the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister.
The responsibilities transferred were administrative in nature, centring on the appointment of commissioners, the determination of their remuneration and allowances, the appointment of persons to assist the commissions in the performance of their functions and to determine their remuneration and allowances and the remuneration and allowances for any assessor appointed by the chief commissioner to assist at hearings, the making of rules for regulating proceedings before the commission and the prescription of fees in respect of appeal applications.
I shall not explain the rationale for the transfer, as it is not within the remit of the Committee on Procedures. It has already been the subject of consideration by the relevant Statutory Committees. However, the Committee understands that the thrust behind the Order was to reinforce the independence of the Planning Appeals Commission and the Water Appeals Commission. The Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister has recently initiated a quinquennial review of the Planning Appeals Commission and the Water Appeals Commission.
The Committee of the Centre wishes to be involved in that review. To do so, an amendment to Standing Orders is required, because Standing Order 54, which sets out the remit of the Committee of the Centre, is very specific. Unlike Statutory Committees, whose remit is to advise and assist their respective Ministers in the formulation of policy, the remit of the Committee of the Centre is limited, as it can scrutinise only those functions specified in Standing Orders or any other matter determined by the Assembly.
The net effect is that each time the Committee of the Centre wishes to scrutinise a new role of the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister, an addition to the list of functions in Standing Order 54 is required; hence this motion to amend Standing Order 54. The proposed wording of the amendment reflects the legal advice that the Committee received to describe the transferred functions.

Ms Jane Morrice: The Chairperson has again responded to my query to a certain extent. However, I would appreciate further information, as the Planning Appeals Commission and the Water Appeals Commission are to be the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister’s responsibility.
The Chairperson said that he should not necessarily comment on that. He said that it was to do with reinforcing the independence of those bodies, which we certainly welcome. Will the Chairperson elaborate on the exact reason for the transfer? If not, will he tell us where we can find it?

Mr Conor Murphy: The reason for the transfer was not a matter that the Committee on Procedures considered; it was a matter for the Statutory Committees that were involved in the transfer and for the relevant Ministers and Departments. The Departments (Transfer of Functions) Order (Northern Ireland) 2001 came into force last year. I am sure that the reasoning behind that legislation is laid out in the explanatory notes. The Statutory Committees and the Committee of the Centre have considered the matter. The Committee on Procedures’s function was simply to table a motion to amend Standing Orders to allow the Committee of the Centre, whose remit is firmly fixed in Standing Orders, to consider matters relating either to the Water Appeals Commission or to the Planning Appeals Commission.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved (with cross-community support):
In Standing Order 54(1) after paragraph (l) insert:
"(m) Those functions relating to the Planning Appeals Commission and the Water Appeals Commission transferred to the Office of the First Minister and Deputy First Minister by The Departments (Transfer of Functions) Order (Northern Ireland) 2001."

Mr Conor Murphy: Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle.
I beg to move:
Insert new Standing Order:
"75. OFFICIAL REPORT (Hansard)
(1) A substantially verbatim report of the proceedings at all sittings of the Assembly and Committee meetings that form part of the legislative process or at which evidence that will contribute to a report by a Committee is being taken shall be prepared and published. The report shall be known as the Official Report (Hansard) and shall be a record of the proceedings in the language spoken.
(2) A revised edition of the Official Report (Hansard) for all Assembly sittings and Committee meetings which form part of the legislative process shall be prepared in bound volume form at such times as the Speaker shall determine. Such bound volumes shall also contain written questions and answers for the period covered.
(3) Editorial control of the Official Report (Hansard) shall rest ultimately with the Speaker but shall be exercised on his behalf by the Editor of Debates."
The Official Report, or Hansard as it is usually called, is the report of proceedings in plenary. It is a substantially verbatim report, and it performs a vital function in showing the Assembly’s commitment to openness, accountability and accessibility. In addition, Hansard offers a unique record for posterity that will help future generations paint a picture of how we lived today and how and why we made decisions.
Standing Orders do not contain official provision for the production and publication of the Official Report. That is at odds with the practice in the Scottish Parliament, the Dáil and the Welsh Assembly. It could leave the Assembly open to the accusation that it is not being seen to give Hansard the standing that it merits. More importantly, it could also be argued that the omission is contrary to the intention of schedule 6 to the Northern Ireland Act 1998, which states that
"The standing orders shall include provision for reporting the proceedings of the Assembly and for publishing the reports."
Standing Order 70 makes provision for the printing of the minutes of proceedings, which are the official record of proceedings. Those form the record of decisions made and should not be confused with Hansard, which has a separate, independent role. Moreover, Standing Order 70 is concerned with the Office of the Clerk and with the records of the Assembly. Hansard is a separate entity, with editorial control resting with the Editor, who exercises that responsibility on behalf of the Speaker. It is important that that independence is reflected in a separate Standing Order, rather than by being incorporated it into an existing Standing Order, such as Standing Order 70.
Although the issue has caused no problems to date, the new Standing Order makes formal provision for Hansard and removes any uncertainty as to its role. It gives Hansard the important place that it merits in the operation of the Assembly. I commend the motion to the Assembly.

Mr John Fee: I want to talk specifically about the role of the Editor of Debates and the role of the Speaker and about paragraph (3) of the proposed new Standing Order 75, which states that
"Editorial control of the Official Report (Hansard) shall rest ultimately with the Speaker but shall be exercised on his behalf by the Editor of Debates."
I understand from what the Chairperson of the Committee on Procedures has said that we are following the precedent set by Westminster, the Scottish Parliament, the Dáil and the like. On enquiry this morning, however, I have not been able to find any Standing Order of this nature that pertains or applies in Westminster, the Scottish Parliament, the Dáil or in any other Western democracy. There are certainly conventions, custom and practice, and proper procedures that have been built up over centuries, but they do not vest editorial control of the Official Report in the Speaker of any of those Parliaments.
To be fair to the Editor of Debates in this House and to the Speaker, both of whom have provided exemplary performances in recent times, we should not confuse the authority vested in those two positions. From the outset, all of us agree that Hansard has to be a true and accurate account of what happens here. It is a crucially important historical record. Following recent judgements in the High Court in England, it is also a very important legal record from which courts may draw inference. However, to rest the editorial control with the Speaker, who may have to adjudicate on a challenge to the official record, is to confuse his role with that of the Editor of Debates.
It is the role of the Editor of Debates to try to ensure that a true and accurate account of the sittings of this Assembly is recorded and published at an appropriate time. All of us in this place know that the Hansard staff have been wonderful in meeting the deadlines that we have set for them, both before and after devolution. The former Editor of Debates did a wonderful job when he was here, and his successor has followed in his footsteps.
However, to divest the Editor of Debates of the responsibility for editorial control will cause the House substantial problems.
12.00
An old journalistic maxim is that the editor of a newspaper will publish such prejudices of the owner as the prejudices of the advertisers will allow. If we allow this new Standing Order, it will open the House to that accusation. If we consider again the procedures and precedences in other places, we will find that the independence of the Speaker guarantees a full and accurate Official Report and that the independence of the Editor maintains the Speaker’s role and the accuracy and veracity of the Official Report.
I ask the Committee on Procedures to reconsider the new Standing Order and to implement procedures whereby the Assembly Commission, the Clerk and the Speaker’s Office are compelled to ensure that the Official Report (Hansard) is properly published. I beg the Committee not to remove the editorial independence of the Editor of Debates.

Mr Billy Hutchinson: The Member for Newry and Armagh, Mr Fee, voiced my concerns eloquently.

Mr Conor Murphy: This Member for Newry and Armagh will try to answer Mr Hutchinson’s concerns eloquently also.
All new Standing Orders or changes to Standing Orders brought to the Assembly by the Committee on Procedures are checked by the Assembly’s legal adviser, and the Speaker is consulted. The Speaker’s view has been sought on this Standing Order. I assure Mr Fee and Mr Hutchinson that the Committee would be happy to consider all queries about Standing Orders. If a Member is not content with the Committee’s view, he or she is free to table an amendment.
This Standing Order confirms current practice. In Westminster, editorial control rests with the Speaker, and that arrangement has not caused the problems that John Fee anticipates occurring here. In Westminster, the Speaker is responsible for the Official Report (Hansard) and delegates editorial responsibility to the Editor of Debates. The Speaker, as required by Erskine May and, perhaps, Westminster Standing Orders, appoints the Westminster Editor of Debates.
The Committee on Procedures checks amendments to Standing Orders and proposed Standing Orders with the Assembly’s legal adviser. If Members think that that arrangement raises a problem, the Committee would be happy to re-examine it. The proposed Standing Order is, however, legally competent and reflects current practice here and in other legislatures.
Question put.
The Assembly divided: Ayes 45; Noes 14.
Ayes
Nationalist
Bairbre de Brún, Pat Doherty, John Kelly, Barry McElduff, Gerry McHugh, Mitchel McLaughlin, Pat McNamee, Francie Molloy, Conor Murphy, Mick Murphy, Mary Nelis, Dara O’Hagan, Sue Ramsey.
Unionist
Ian Adamson, Roy Beggs, Paul Berry, Esmond Birnie, Mervyn Carrick, Wilson Clyde, Fred Cobain, Robert Coulter, Duncan Shipley Dalton, Ivan Davis, Nigel Dodds, Boyd Douglas, Sam Foster, Oliver Gibson, William Hay, David Hilditch, Danny Kennedy, Robert McCartney, Michael McGimpsey, Maurice Morrow, Ian Paisley Jnr, Edwin Poots, Ken Robinson, Mark Robinson, Peter Robinson, Denis Watson, Peter Weir, Jim Wells, Jim Wilson.
Other
David Ford, Kieran McCarthy, Sean Neeson.
Noes
Nationalist
P J Bradley, Annie Courtney, John Dallat, Arthur Doherty, John Fee, Tommy Gallagher, Joe Hendron, Patricia Lewsley, Alasdair McDonnell, Monica McWilliams, Eamonn ONeill, John Tierney.
Unionist
Billy Hutchinson, Jane Morrice.
Total Votes 59 Total Ayes 45 ( 76·3%) Nationalist Votes 25 Nationalist Ayes 13 ( 52·0%) Unionist Votes 31 Unionist Ayes 29 ( 93·5%)
Question accordingly agreed to.
Resolved (with cross-community support):
Insert new Standing Order:
"75. OFFICIAL REPORT (Hansard)
(1) A substantially verbatim report of the proceedings at all sittings of the Assembly and Committee meetings that form part of the legislative process or at which evidence that will contribute to a report by a Committee is being taken shall be prepared and published. The report shall be known as the Official Report (Hansard) and shall be a record of the proceedings in the language spoken.
(2) A revised edition of the Official Report (Hansard) for all Assembly sittings and Committee meetings which form part of the legislative process shall be prepared in bound volume form at such times as the Speaker shall determine. Such bound volumes shall also contain written questions and answers for the period covered.
(3) Editorial control of the Official Report (Hansard) shall rest ultimately with the Speaker but shall be exercised on his behalf by the Editor of Debates."

Report of the Committee for Culture, Arts and Leisure: Cultural Tourism and the Arts

Mr Donovan McClelland: Order. Members will leave the Chamber quietly.

Mr Eamonn ONeill: I beg to move
That this Assembly approves the Report of the Committee for Culture, Arts and Leisure on its Inquiry into Cultural Tourism and the Arts and calls on the Executive to ensure that the Committee’s recommendations are evaluated and implemented at the earliest opportunity.
The Committee for Culture, Arts and Leisure launched this important and substantive inquiry on 25 January 2001. Its terms of reference were: to determine the status of the existing relationship between the cultural and tourist sectors; to identify areas of the arts with the potential to be incorporated into a cultural tourist product that could be actively promoted by the tourist industry; to identify the support required by cultural activities, including languages, to enable that heritage to be maintained and enhanced; and to report to the Assembly, making recommendations to the Department and/or others on action to strengthen the link between culture and tourism. The Committee also agreed that the inquiry should take particular account of the diversity and unique nature of the cultural tourism product that Northern Ireland can offer its visitors.
I am not exaggerating when I say that the Committee was astounded to receive 82 written submissions from a wide variety of groups and individuals with an interest in every conceivable aspect of culture, heritage and the arts.
These ranged from the North of Ireland Bands’ Association to the Ulster Historical Foundation; from the Hilden Brewery Company to the Lyric Theatre; from the University of Ulster to the Somme Association; and from the National Trust to Gael-Linn. We held 39 oral evidence sessions with key organisations representing the main sectoral interests. In addition, the Committee had the opportunity to draw on the experience gained during fact-finding visits to Boston, Paris and Barcelona, which were taken in association with the inquiry. We were fortunate to be able to engage with key public and private sector organisations in those cities.
At the outset, the Committee accepted that Northern Ireland’s negative image, combined with the failure to promote and market the region enthusiastically, resulted in lost years of tourist growth compared to other parts of the United Kingdom and Ireland. We certainly cannot promise good weather and warm seas in Northern Ireland, but today’s traveller is increasingly seeking more than sun-and-sand destinations. People are living longer, remain more affluent in their retirement, and have a growing interest in visiting places where they can learn about different cultures.
Most people come to Northern Ireland to visit friends and relatives, and although this important market has sustained the industry in hard times, we now have a tremendous opportunity to develop new markets. The growth of a top-quality cultural tourism sector, which will have the potential to attract the general tourist and the high added-value niche market, forms the core of that opportunity. Noting that tourism’s contribution to Northern Ireland’s gross domestic product (GDP) is less than a third of that in the Republic of Ireland, Scotland and Wales is a stark illustration of how far we have to go to catch up. In fact, it is 1·8 % compared to 6% in the other regions. Also, we cannot rely, at least in the short term, on the North American market as a visitor source. If Northern Ireland’s culture and heritage are to remain key attractions, it is essential that targeting customers outside the long-haul market is given priority. The Republic of Ireland, Great Britain and continental Europe must be regarded as critically important.
Nevertheless, the Committee believes the scope for cultural tourism to be immense. Key niche products such as roots tourism and local studies, education and linguistics, literary and other arts-based summer schools, festivals, theatre, music and dance, as well as the many facets of our built and natural heritage, all hold considerable potential for growing a vibrant cultural tourism product. Northern Ireland has a wealth of cultural and heritage attractions that are key elements of the experience that we can offer to the visitor. Over 440 official heritage sites have been identified in recent research by the Academy for Irish Cultural Heritage at the University of Ulster. There are also many unofficial sites.
Culture and arts enrich our lives, build confidence and inspire hope in communities. They must not be seen as elitist pastimes. The Committee also believes that Northern Ireland’s approach to the arts and culture as products must embrace the principles of sustainability; long-term viability; limited negative impact; local involvement; and positive social and economic benefits for all communities, groups and individuals involved.
Our inquiry also brought home to us the importance of industrial heritage tourism and its potential, largely untapped in Northern Ireland. That can help to create employment and investment in industrial areas where manufacturing industry has declined. It can also restore pride in communities and improve people’s perceptions of their localities. Many local authorities, particularly in industrial towns in the English Midlands, are incorporating industrial heritage tourism into their tourist development programmes.
By comparison, in Northern Ireland, we have largely neglected our industrial heritage and allowed many of its best examples to be destroyed. We now need to commit ourselves to recognising the importance of preserving and reusing it for sound economic reasons, as well as for the education and appreciation of our community and visitors.
Linked to industrial tourism is the story of the Titanic. Several written submissions expressed interest in the development of a maritime museum in the Belfast shipyard. The story of the Titanic has been told across the world, but Northern Ireland has failed to capitalise on the fact that the ship was designed, built and launched in Belfast.
The plans for the Titanic are currently held in the Ulster Folk and Transport Museum at Cultra. The original drafting rooms, Thompson Dock and the keel blocks on which the Titanic rested during its fitting-out still exist. Furthermore, the SS Nomadic, the last remaining White Star Line tender, which was used to ferry passengers to and from the Titanic, is currently located on the River Seine in Paris. The acquisition of that vessel could be a focal point for a Titanic attraction.
It is also evident that we have not developed the arts festival and summer school sector to the same extent as the Republic. While we have a few major festivals that have proven sustainable over the years, there is enormous scope for further developments. We must also consider how to fill the gaps that exist during the summer months with arts- and culture-based activities and attractions for the community and tourists.
We must do more to persuade the promoters of world- class and major international events that Northern Ireland is a good location. However, we must be in a position to back that up with hard cash.
Northern Ireland lags significantly behind England and Scotland as a location for world-class and major international events. It is even further behind the Republic of Ireland. The region’s negative image is clearly a major factor for performers, promoters and sponsors.
The Northern Ireland Events Company’s budget for this year is just over £1 million. Two years ago, the Government of the Republic allocated an extra £2·5 million a year for three years to bring in extra events. That was in addition to the financial support already provided for four major golf tournaments and a range of other cultural, arts and sports events. For example, approximately £7 million has been allocated to the 2005 Ryder Cup from the public purse, and the return to the Irish Exchequer on this investment alone is expected to be between £50 million and £100 million.
That illustrates clearly the need for that kind of investment. We must persuade promoters that Northern Ireland has good facilities and is a safe, sensible location. We also need to persuade ourselves that we can host major events.
The devolved Administrations in Scotland and Wales have allocated significant budgets to attract big events. With competition becoming more intense, the key to success is to enable the Northern Ireland Events Company to give a financial commitment sufficiently far ahead in the bidding process.
In the year that we have submitted our bid for European Capital of Culture 2008, it is astonishing that Belfast is the only major city in the United Kingdom without a dedicated public art gallery. The Ulster Museum has a unique collection of Irish art and a collection of British contemporary art that was described by ‘The Times’ as the finest outside London. Irish art is hugely popular, particularly in America, but the museum cannot display its full collection because it does not have enough space. The development of a museum of creative arts could be, and should be, the key priority for the Department, and the Museums and Galleries of Northern Ireland (MAGNI). That would provide a showcase for the prestigious collection held by the Ulster Museum and enable exhibitions of world-class collections to be staged.
It is worth noting that the Monet, Renoir and the Impressionist Landscape exhibit, which was on show in the new Millennium Wing of the National Gallery of Ireland between January and April this year, attracted an average of 2,000 paying visitors each day, a large proportion of whom would have had a considerable economic impact on the city with overnight or weekend stays.
With 60 million people claiming to have Irish ancestry, there is a worldwide market for roots tourism. However, investment in, and the marketing of, genealogy have been largely neglected. We heard compelling evidence about the impact that a move away from the use of townland names would have on communities and potential roots tourism.
Other issues considered included: the promotion of our linguistic diversity as a unique asset to the tourism industry; promoting and showcasing our tradition of quality band music through hosting international competitions; the cultivation of traditional song and music; providing support for local professional opera; developing dance; reviewing the opportunities which exist to support the independent professional theatre sector; the potential to develop and co-ordinate cultural trails and tours; and the importance of film and television in forging positive images.
The Committee’s report sets out 56 recommendations, and their implementation will be essential to improving the quality, cohesiveness and competitiveness of our cultural tourism.
Only two weeks ago Committee Colleagues and I attended a conference on cultural tourism in County Cork. The theme of the conference was ‘A National Asset Awaiting Sensitive Development’. Delegates heard that tourism is undoubtedly Ireland’s greatest area of growth, with ever-increasing numbers of tourists interested in culture and tradition. Those tourists are prepared to go out of their way to remote places to find authentic, living culture, much of which is hidden among the hills and valleys and has lived on for generations without disturbance. That is every bit as true in areas such as the Glens of Antrim, the Sperrins or Rathlin Island as it is in Cork, Kerry or Clare.
Our hidden locations need to be developed alongside the better known cultural centres to ensure a wider spread of attractions and, consequently, more tourist spending throughout rural and urban areas. The challenge will be to ensure that authentic culture survives commercialism.
One of the speakers at the conference expressed the view that the extent to which a country’s culture is known elsewhere is a defining characteristic of any people. That is a thought-providing statement. He encapsulated the importance of culture for us all by saying that
"If you were to meet a man coming along the road who couldn’t tell you where he was coming from, it would be a fair bet that he wouldn’t be able to say where he was going either".
We all have a stake in the enhancement and development of Northern Ireland’s cultural tourism product, and we must take an interest in it.
I wish to express a number of acknowledgements on behalf of the Committee. We were encouraged by the level of involvement in the inquiry. We thank all those who sent in written submissions and those whose appearance before the Committee to give oral evidence provided us with much vital food for thought.
I wish to record the Committee’s appreciation of the assistance given by Boston College and the British Council in facilitating our invaluable study visits to Boston, Paris and Barcelona. As Chairperson of the Committee, I pay tribute to my Committee Colleagues, who overcame many traumas to get to where we are and worked exceedingly hard to bring the report to publication. I pay an equally glowing tribute to the Committee staff, the Committee Clerk and its specialist adviser.
Cultural tourism is a broad area, and like the Committee’s report on inland fisheries, our recommendations involve several Ministers and their Departments. It is a prime example of an area in which joined-up government is essential and can deliver real benefits for the entire community. My Committee Colleagues will further develop the issues emerging from the report, and I look forward to an interesting debate. I commend the report to the Assembly.
The sitting was suspended at 12.37pm.
On resuming (Madam Deputy Speaker [Ms Morrice] in the Chair ) —

Ms Mary Nelis: Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. I support the motion and thank all those who contributed to the report through oral and written submissions. I commend the Committee Chairperson and the members who diligently, and at times passionately, went through the various drafts. They all fought for the cultural and artistic attractions of their constituencies. I am especially grateful to the Committee Clerks, for without their skill we may not have had a report at all. However, the person engaged as special adviser to draft the report failed to address adequately the four stated objectives in a precise or objective manner.
Cultural tourism and the arts, as the Committee learnt, can be anything from the search for local place names such as Lisnamucky, to listening to the tales — tall or otherwise — of the yarn spinners, or engaging with the flautist skills of the local flute band.
Some years ago, a group of Pennsylvanian millionaires came here in search of the Elliot and the Curran clans. They knew the place names from whence their ancestors had come and they managed to find the "auld sod", as some people describe it. We did not capitalise on the interests of those wealthy cultural tourists, and the report suggests many recommendations on how we may attract and service such visitors in the future.
The submissions to the inquiry were exciting, varied and informative. They came from groups as diverse as the National Trust, the Glass Ceiling Theatreworks, the Gortin and District Historical Society and the Hilden Brewing Company, which unfortunately did not provide a sample of its wares with its submission. Despite the wealth of evidence from such diverse cultural, artistic and tourism organisations, the special adviser to the Committee used his own material throughout the report as a source of information and to verify that information. It was disappointing to note that that happened despite excellent submissions.
Most of the special adviser’s evidence was generated via the Northern Ireland Tourist Board. It was apparent from the first draft that the special adviser and the Northern Ireland Tourist Board did not understand the intricacies of the definitions and working of "culture" and " the arts". That is best exemplified by the table used by the special adviser, which was sourced from the Northern Ireland Tourist Board. It failed to distinguish between visitors and tourists, and that type of statistic was used intermittently throughout the report without due care and concern for relevance.
The now infamous table excluded the sixteenth century Derry city walls and wiped the city’s historic landmark off the cultural and tourism top 20 map at a time when Derry City Council had bid to have the walls declared a world heritage site. The other famous Derry tourist attraction, Free Derry wall, did not get a mention from the special adviser either — such was the limitation and myopia of the expert appointed to draft the report for the Committee.
Most of the places listed in the table, for instance the Pickie Family Fun Park — the second favourite tourist attraction — are unknown to people outside the Belfast and Bangor areas. I cannot imagine cultural tourists from Europe or the United States of America coming to visit a pool surrounded by rocks with the added attraction of a train and a donkey. I can imagine that the Pickie Family Fun Park would provide a great day’s outing for families from that area of the east coast. That shows the need to distinguish between the cultural tourists and visitors who come to see friends and relatives and who make up 40% of all the people who come to visit the North.
How do we turn the visitors of family and friends into cultural tourists? That is the major question.
The recommendations, if adopted, show how heritage days, theme tours and trails can become special interest markets that offer specific experiences. More detailed research and analysis of the material submitted was needed in early drafts to help the Committee understand and interpret the widely diverse definitions of cultural tourism and the arts. The Committee is indebted to its Clerk, who produced a better, workable and relevant definition of our stated objectives.
The United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation (UNESCO) defines culture as:
"distinctive spiritual, material, intellectual and emotional features that characterize a society or social group."
Art is the outworking of those features, and culture is the glue that bonds us together. It impacts on every aspect of our lives. It allows us to celebrate ourselves and show the rest of the world who we are and how we live.
The tourist is the person who comes to experience our uniqueness through the lens we offer. Why tourists come, and how to analyse that, is a major part of our recommendations and requires partnership between the major players. The jury is still out on why so many tourists come to this small island, but we can be sure that it is not for sun, sea and sand. Submissions from various groups and organisations helped us to examine that issue.
Tourists may come in search of their roots and their identity; to seek out the place that produces Irish music, art, or literature; to see monuments of ancient civilisations; to see the artistic splendour of the Book of Kells, the Cathach, and the Broighter Gold; and to see the historic sites of the Boyne, Derry city walls, Newgrange and where the Titanic was built.
It is accepted that many tourists come to look at our wall murals, and most tour operators now include those as part of their itinerary. Those attractions should be considered as specific elements of a cultural strategy proposed in section 5 of the report, but such a strategy should be based on an all-Ireland partnership between the arts, tourists and cultural organisations. Planned, resourced and managed tourist projects, whether they be festivals, events, band concerts or genealogical summer schools, must be co-ordinated in order to reflect the relationship among the visitor, the tourist and the local community.
The appearance of a close-knit community shaped around its culture and art creates a positive image. However, the essence of any cultural tourism and arts strategy must be rooted firmly in the cultural pluralism of the local communities. That would acknowledge that, although we share this island, we have distinctive codes of behaviour and historical identities.
The report establishes that difference can be a key feature. Many of the success stories recorded in the submissions received little or no recognition or financial support from the agencies that have been set up to promote general tourism.
We recommend that all cultural tourism strategies should start with an inventory of resources. The process should include an assessment of how local people feel, as well as the views of the vested interest groups, such as local authorities, statutory agencies and others. Too often, tourism planning strategies are based on a hope and false expectations as opposed to a reliable and technically sound evaluation of potential impacts.
New and innovative partnerships and techniques must be considered — involving trusts, co-operatives and community councils — when implementing a cultural tourism and arts strategy. Our report will be the catalyst for such initiatives. I urge the Minister and the Department to support the motion. Go raibh míle maith agat.

Dr Ian Adamson: I extend my thanks to the Committee for Culture, Arts and Leisure, chaired by Mr ONeill. I also thank the Committee Clerk and her staff for the hard work that they have put into this important report, which, I believe, shows the Belfast Agreement at its best.
The greatest of all historians, Gaius Cornelius Tacitus, wrote of the exhortation of the British nobleman, Calgacus, who fought the Roman Empire, when he said of the Romans:
"There are no more nations beyond us; nothing is there but waves and rocks — the Romans more deadly still than these, for in them is an arrogance which no submission or good behaviour can escape…They create desolation and they call it peace."
As recent events in Belfast have shown, many ordinary people in Northern Ireland have rarely felt so despondent and uncertain of their future. Whether real or imaginary, the perception in the Unionist community in particular, is that the so-called "other side" has gained most from the political process. That has been feeding an increasingly sceptical and negative appraisal of the Belfast Agreement, and what we call "peace".
The overriding concern most frequently voiced by community activists is that there is in increasing internal disarray and even disintegration in Loyalist areas. The unemployment situation has rarely been so dire. The level of education attainment remains abysmal. The former community infrastructure, even if largely of an informal nature, has taken a severe battering from mismanaged redevelopment, the break-up of old communities and the absence of any long-term strategy for revitalisation and renewal. That is why such reports are so vital to social, economic and cultural regeneration in large areas of Northern Ireland.
The Department should assess the further potential for the development of dynamic cultural quarters in Northern Ireland’s cities to promote and showcase local culture and locations in which art and culture can be offered to all. District councils should place greater focus on the historic cores of our cities and towns, through the development of history trails, imaginative interpretation and storytelling in which we excel.
The Department and the Arts Council should assess the position elsewhere, regarding the requirements placed on developers to include public art into major schemes, particularly in urban areas. The Northern Ireland Tourist Board should determine, in each product group network, the extent to which themed tours and trails can be used for the special interest market as well as for the future tourists that we so desire.
In east Belfast, for example, there is ample potential to develop and co-ordinate trails and tours that focus on diverse aspects of culture and tradition. C S Lewis — perhaps the greatest Christian writer of the twentieth century — was born in Belfast in 1898. The C S Lewis tourist trail links the main places in Belfast and north Down that are most closely associated with Lewis, such as St Mark’s Church, Dundela; Little Lea, Circular Road; Bernagh, now known as Red Hall on the Circular Road; the Old Inn at Crawfordsburn; the Holywood hills, which were the template and origin for the Narnia tales — the greatest children’s stories ever written; Campbell College; Dundela flats and the centenary sculpture at Holywood Arches.
Little Lea and Bernagh, which is owned by the South and East Belfast Health and Social Services Trust, are still under threat of development. That must be reversed. At Bernagh, Lewis wrote his first book as a Christian — the great ‘Pilgrim’s Regress’ — an imitation of ‘The Pilgrim’s Progress’. That building must be protected from developers at all costs. The Chairperson also spoke in detail about the Titanic Trail, which, of course, has great potential throughout the world.
The historic cores of our key cities offer a great opportunity for tourism, as has been shown by the promotion of Derry’s walls and the O’Doherty Fort in Londonderry. Also, the development of heirskip, or heritage, villages, perhaps centred on the reconstruction of Belfast at the time of the American Revolution, could be created in inner east Belfast to facilitate the promotion of the Ulster-Scots language and culture. That should be done on an equal basis with Ulster and Irish Gaelic language and culture, to revitalise the entire area.
We must require developers to incorporate public art into their major schemes, especially in urban areas, so that they can put something back into the community that they have pillaged for far too long. There is not, to the Committee’s knowledge, an officer at either central Government or local government level anywhere in Northern Ireland whose specific responsibility is to encourage the sponsorship and incorporation of artwork in public areas for all the public to see. We who pay the pipers should also call the tune.

Mr David Hilditch: As a member of the Committee for Culture, Arts and Leisure, I am pleased that the ‘Inquiry into Cultural Tourism and the Arts’ report has now been concluded and brought before the House. The inquiry was launched last January, and I, for one, never imagined that the Committee would be subjected to such an enthusiastic response. We received more than 80 submissions. To add further support, the Committee also heard oral evidence from 100 people representing 39 organisations.
The workload was immense, so I join with other Committee members in thanking the Committee Clerk and the support staff for all their work on the inquiry in the past 18 months. I also thank those who took the time and trouble to make submissions, both written and oral, giving the Committee much food for thought on wide and varied issues within the terms of reference.
It was clear from the outset that Northern Ireland was starting on the back row of the grid. Our geographical location on the periphery of Europe and the unreliable climate do us no favours. Those factors, combined with decades of terrorism and civil unrest, ensured that Northern Ireland could not reach its full potential. Regrettably, some figures indicate that, up to 2000, 62% of people who came to Northern Ireland were either visiting friends or relatives or were here on business. That left only 18% who could be considered tourists.
During the inquiry, the bottom fell out of the North American market in the aftermath of the terrorist attacks in the United States on 11 September, leaving another void in an area that had witnessed a fair degree of growth. That, on top of the foot-and-mouth disease outbreak, has taken a severe toll.
The only other negative issue on which I wish to comment was the repeated criticism of the Northern Ireland Tourist Board, which featured time and time again in oral evidence. It has been a bad time recently for the Tourist Board, so I shall not dwell on the subject. However, there was consensus that there had been a failure to promote and market the region and to encourage tourist development of culture and the arts. However, some comfort can be taken from the work of the Cultural Tourism Partnership in placing culture at the heart of the Northern Ireland Tourist Board’s corporate plan.
The report contains 56 recommendations that reflect issues from the arts of music, film, drama and dance to visitor attractions, cultural strategies, infrastructure, funding and much more. The recommendations show the depth of the key issues.
I draw the House’s attention to the recommendations that highlight the potential for festivals, summer schools and other events, especially recommendation 8 on the development of the festival sector. It has been established that festivals can play an important role at local level, specific to the culture of that area, and also on a wider regional basis. More importantly, they are major economic generators. For example, the highly successful Edinburgh Festival 2001, to which the report refers, redeemed an otherwise devastated Scottish tourism industry in the wake of the last year’s foot-and-mouth disease outbreak.
The recommendation states:
"District councils should consider how they could encourage the development of sustainable local community festivals, which would also provide a focus for visitors."
That would complement existing major festivals. However, to develop their potential
"they must be able to offer long-term viability and serve both the host community and the visitor."
One local example is the Carrickfergus Waterfront Festival, held during the past two weeks, which included a re-enactment of the landing of King William in 1690. Every year, local people take pride in proclaiming their history and heritage, and visitors display their hunger to learn of the culture of others and eagerly return to witness the event.
District councils have begun to realise the potential of such festivals, but promotion and co-ordination are essential. It was disappointing that several of the 26 district councils did not reply to the Committee’s request for information on local festivals. Those included four of the eight councils whose areas encompass the Causeway Coast and the Glens of Antrim, two of the country’s leading tourist attractions.
During our research, it was interesting to learn that a similar policy has been developed in France, where, until recently, 500 festivals were not considered to be tourist products. Those are now specifically marketed, and 15% to 20% of visitors to major festivals are now foreign tourists.
In recommendation 9, the Committee strongly encourages Belfast Festival at Queen’s to examine the potential of summer events and to use the broadcasting media to develop an international audience. Representatives of Belfast Festival at Queen’s stated in their evidence that they were conscious of the gap that exists during the summer. The festival is in its fortieth year, has proved its sustainability and has capitalised on the focus of Halloween. The Committee would support any proposal to organise events to fill the summer gap and to promote the festival more widely.
Although Belfast Festival at Queen’s cannot rival the Edinburgh Festival, there is scope to tap into international coverage through the commissioning of a purpose-made showcase to highlight events during the festival to satellite television audiences worldwide.
I endorse recommendation 13, which calls on the Arts Council of Northern Ireland to liaise with district councils, the professional theatre and others to develop a summer arts programme for local audiences and visitors. Such a programme could serve a dual purpose as a training ground for young actors and as a frequently changing entertainment option.
The Northern Ireland Events Company only scratches the surface in its provision. I commend its efforts, but given our limited resources, we can only glance sideways in jealousy at our neighbouring devolved Administrations in Scotland and Wales, where significant budgets attract major events. We must persuade potential promoters, as well as ourselves, that business can be done in Northern Ireland. However, given the Northern Ireland Events Company’s limited budget of £1 million, the key to success will be the positioning of a financial commitment sufficiently far ahead in the bidding process.
Unfortunately, confidence in the Northern Ireland Events Company was recently undermined by a Sinn Féin/IRA Member. That organisation destroyed stability with its campaign of murder and destruction but now has the audacity to portray itself as the minder of the public purse.
Perhaps the Minister could consider another major event. In recent days, it has emerged that the local government auditor has written to Carrickfergus Borough Council, which in 1997 won the right to host the Optimist World Championship in sailing. Despite the fact that that successful event was a good economic generator for the area, the local government auditor has questioned the council’s entitlement even to bid to stage it. That bureaucracy is a worry, given our attempts to expand and bring world-class events to Northern Ireland.
I support the motion. I commend the report and hope that its recommendations will be implemented soon.

Mr Kieran McCarthy: I support fully the contents of the report on the inquiry into cultural tourism and the arts. As a member of the Committee for Culture, Arts and Leisure, I am delighted that the report has come to the House.
The Committee worked extremely hard. It listened to many groups and considered many written submissions. I hope that its Assembly Colleagues will support the report’s recommendations and that the Executive will act on it, because that can only benefit everyone in Northern Ireland.
We must make up for the lost and wasted years. Northern Ireland has much to offer. I have repeatedly told the Committee’s hosts in Boston, Paris, Barcelona, Scotland and Galway that they should visit the Strangford constituency. It has it all — it is the best in the land. Of course, my Assembly Colleagues supported me fully at all times.
Northern Ireland has two important features with which to attract visitors: genealogy, which could be classed as a "roots strategy"; and townland names. Recommendations 19, 20, 21, 22 and 23 cover fully what must be done. The Northern Ireland Tourist Board and other bodies could play a significant part in a roots strategy. The report states that there are
"60 million people worldwide claiming to have Irish ancestry".
Those people must be persuaded to visit us. Although they may discover that their relatives live in Cork, Kerry or Waterford, we should, through investment, development and marketing, entice them to Northern Ireland. We can assure them of a welcome and offer them attractions equal to those in other places. Ireland is a small island, and we can benefit if the determination is there.
I recently received information about the Irish Genealogical Congress, which holds a week-long international conference every three to four years that attracts people from all over the world. Plans are afoot to hold the next conference in 2004. Belfast was considered as a venue in the past but, because of its problems, other cities were selected instead. Therefore, at this early stage, I appeal to the Minister of Culture, Arts and Leisure to consider seriously the provision of a real incentive that would bring the Irish Genealogical Congress to Belfast. It is an excellent opportunity that should not be missed.
I pay tribute to the work of our local historical societies, especially the Federation for Ulster Local Studies, which made a presentation to the Committee. The Assembly must support all that work.
The Committee Chairperson mentioned my pet subject, which I have spoken about many times in the Assembly, and I shall continue to stress the importance of maintaining the precious heritage of Northern Ireland’s townland names. The previous time that I tabled a motion on townland names I mentioned Ballycranmore, Ballycranbeg, Ballyesborough and Ballyboghilbo. Townland names continue to be an attraction for visitors to Northern Ireland; therefore, they must not be forgotten.
In mirroring recommendation 21, I appeal to all Departments, district councils and other public bodies to include townland names on all correspondence. It is not good enough for Ministers to rely on the community to include townland names on correspondence. Since the early 1970s, townland names have largely been omitted, so an entire generation may be ignorant of them.
I should like to applaud the staff of the Ordnance Survey of Northern Ireland, based at Colby House, Stranmillis Road, on their progress with the common address file. I understand that it is now called the compass address file. I hope that that will give us a complete list of all the townland names in Northern Ireland, that it will be completed in the autumn and that Departments will have no excuse not to include townland names on all their correspondence.
I should also like to pay tribute to the Chairperson, Deputy Chairperson and members of the Committee for Culture, Arts and Leisure for concluding this important inquiry into cultural tourism. I should also like to express my admiration and thanks to all the Committee staff for their help, courtesy and invaluable advice during the course of our work.
I appreciate the presence of the Minister of Culture, Arts and Leisure, Mr McGimpsey, in the Chamber. I know he supports our work, and I hope that he can lead his Department and the other Departments to see that our recommendations are fully adopted.

Mr Fraser Agnew: I should like to congratulate the Committee staff on the way in which they brought the report together. The Committee Clerk — affectionately known as "Mrs Woman" incidentally — and her staff have been tremendous in ensuring that the report is before us. We should also congratulate the Chairperson on his leadership throughout the inquiry.
It was an interesting exercise, and we had submissions from more than 80 groups and individuals concerned about tourism. We asked all those people questions, and one thing that struck me about their views on the Tourist Board was that no one had a good word to say about it. Some did not comment at all. Although that is not my view, others suspect that rather than promoting a good image of Northern Ireland, the Tourist Board has promoted a bad image of itself — a significant comment. Again, and I may be speaking for myself here, we should analyse the usefulness of the Tourist Board and ask whether it is necessary. Around the Province local authorities provide most of the 450 plus tourist facilities.
I am interested in the industrial heritage aspect, an area that is largely untapped here, unlike other parts of the free world. I was in Phoenix, Arizona, a few weeks ago, and there was a Titanic exhibition in downtown Phoenix. That evening I spoke to a group of approximately 35 business people and asked how many realised that the Titanic was built in Belfast. Only two people raised their hands. The rest did not know that the Titanic was built in Belfast, yet there they were having a Titanic exhibition in the middle of Phoenix. On display were all the artefacts that were found at the bottom of the ocean and brought ashore and that now make up a travelling exhibition.
Belfast should be proud of that. Some people seem to think that Belfast should be ashamed because the ship sank. We know why it sank, and it had nothing to do with the skills of the workers in Harland &Wolff; it sank because the silly captain decided to try to break a transatlantic record and sailed straight into an ice field.
Northern Ireland should capitalise on its great industrial base of linen, agriculture, pottery, crystal, even whiskey — it is all there — to highlight what the Province has to offer. I am not so sure about poteen, but those are all part of our culture.
Newtownabbey Borough Council was faced with the possibility of seeing the demolition of a great mill at Mossley that had played a central part in the industrial revolution in Ireland. The council stepped in immediately and within a week had purchased the mill and decided to turn it into its new headquarters.
Other areas in the UK are preserving their industrial heritage, and it is paying its way. A Lisburn man called Gregg developed the great mills at Hyde on the fringe of Manchester Airport, The National Trust is taking those over and fabricating and manufacturing items for the tourist industry. It is paying its way. The big spinning wheels and the steam turbines are all there and are being restored.
A similar project is going on at the mill village in Lanark, just outside Glasgow. People are still living in tenements in that area, but part of the mill has been converted into a hotel, and other parts have been restored to working order.
A private entrepreneur took over massive mills in Halifax in North England and developed them. They are so vast that one could not walk from one end to the other, but would require transport. An arts centre and all sorts of businesses and attractions, hotels and restaurants have been established there.
In Bradford a large collection of old machinery has been restored — in fact, there is so much that it is being sold off to other museums throughout the UK. All those operations are in place to preserve our industrial heritage.
We are proud of what we have done in Newtownabbey, because the industrial revolution in Ireland took off in the present boundaries of Newtownabbey Borough Council. I had to include that historic fact. We are attempting to preserve part of our heritage. That can be accomplished in many ways. Part of Mossley Mill could be restored and used as a museum. The mills in Benburb have been partially preserved but still need to be developed. These projects could be considered tourist attractions. We have an audience and a product that can be used to attract that audience.
When the Committee was preparing the report, it was discovered that most visitors to Northern Ireland come to see friends and relatives. People must be attracted for other reasons, such as over 450 varied attractions and many worthwhile sites. Leisure centres bring in many visitors, but there are also places of sound historic interest that can be used for tourism.
The Titanic Quarter and the events down at the shipyard can be compared with extensive developments in Liverpool. Those might suggest that the Titanic was built there. The Titanic never visited Liverpool, but the White Star Line was associated with the city. The tender that brought people out from Cherbourg where the Titanic was anchored before it headed off across the Atlantic is now a disused floating restaurant on the River Seine in Paris. That could be brought back here to provide a focal point for tourism. There are many attractions that we could utilise.
I am a believer in community-based tourism. No matter what community we consider, it has something of interest for tourism. It could be an inaccessible hidden rath. What is the sense in having such an attraction with no way to get to it? That is a problem throughout Northern Ireland. In my history research I have found that many attractions are not signposted and lie up a country lane or across a field. We must make those more accessible. We need to audit tourist products, both current and potential.
The Northern Ireland Tourist Board will continue to exist in one form or another despite what I have said. It is of the utmost importance that it promote Northern Ireland’s attractions comprehensively and accurately. At present, it is not doing so. Last night, I looked at a Tourist Board brochure. As I glanced through it, I was surprised to find that the information on certain historic attractions was not accurate. That is not good. The Tourist Board must ensure that it is accurate in its assessment of the attractions that it includes in its brochures.
The approach to promoting attractions should be more comprehensive. There should be an audited list of all the attractions that bring people to the Province. This is a good little Province. Despite all our problems, this place is worth living in. When King William came to Ireland he said that it was a place worth fighting for — we have been doing that ever since. However, we can put that in context and recognise that we are all citizens of this land. There is so much on offer. We ourselves are a product, and there are many things to attract people who have a genuine interest in some of the areas mentioned today.
I have looked at only one aspect of tourism — industrial heritage. There is a market for that. I and other Committee members saw the evidence of that in a place called Lowell, about an hour’s drive from Boston, where they have developed the great mills and put the boat on the old canal. Almost by accident, they decided to install some tiered seating and hold a country and western event. It is now a massive occasion that attracts almost 250,000 people on a weekend.
The significant point about that project is that it is located in a downtown area that was falling apart and inhabited by drug addicts. It was not a place where respectable people would be seen, so something had to be done. The area was developed with the mills as the focal point. The place is tremendous — a basketball arena and an ice arena, which can also host concerts, were built. Facilities were provided to attract people.
Whatever a community has to offer, it will have something that will attract people. It could be a place like Newtownabbey, which was the cradle of the industrial revolution. People are interested in the fact that we have preserved part of that heritage. Unfortunately, some of it has gone. What was perhaps the oldest factory chimney in Ireland was demolished to make way for a Toys ‘R’ Us store, which was a shame. There was no need to take away that chimney. People are attracted to such things. Do we do enough about that?
The report makes 56 recommendations, including some on visitor centres and museums, in which I have an interest. We should consider those recommendations, which I commend to the Assembly. We recommend taking stock of our visitor attractions, heritage centres and other facilities. I urge the Assembly to accept the report’s recommendations, and not only because of the Committee’s hard work. However, it is because of that hard work that we have got the report right. The issues that it raises must be taken on board, not ignored or thrown out.

Mr Jim Wilson: The Chairperson and my Colleagues on the Committee for Culture, Arts and Leisure have already mentioned many aspects of the background to the inquiry, the need for the inquiry and the report. I wish to say a few words about one section of the report.
Before I do, I want to join with others in placing on record a word of thanks to the Chairperson. He did a sterling job, keeping us focused on the objective against many competing pressures. It was not easy, and it was a job well done. Also, I want to thank the Committee staff for their hard work and dedication. This was a substantial inquiry — one that was necessary and useful — and all the staff played a big part from start to finish.
I want to say a few words about Northern Ireland’s image, which has been mentioned briefly by others, and how that image relates to the task of promoting our culture and, I hope, attracting tourists. As was the case in the angling inquiry, some issues were mentioned again and again by almost everyone who made a submission. Our image was certainly one of those. In short, what came over time and time again was the comment: "How can we compete, faced with the bad news stories about Northern Ireland?" Blame was apportioned over a wide spectrum: the terrorists; the rioters on our streets; the criminality in our communities; and the murders. Even the news industry did not escape criticism.
Many submissions noted that a major barrier to developing culture tourism is the persistence of a negative image of Northern Ireland. On the other hand, feedback from visitors suggests that they are impressed by how different the reality of Northern Ireland is from the image they see, hear and read on television, radio and newspapers.
I draw Members’ attention to recommendations 30 and 31. It is not just the media that have the job of telling the Northern Ireland story — it is a Government responsibility, and the responsibility of the Executive and the Assembly. As has been said, it is the responsibility of the Northern Ireland Tourist Board, and the film industry, the Arts Council and district councils also have a role in telling the Northern Ireland story.
Those who made submissions to the inquiry recognised that providing, promoting and marketing culture tourism against a backdrop of terrorism was and, to some extent, still is an uphill battle. However, on the positive side, they also said that when broadcasters and the film industry deal with Northern Ireland culture, they could focus more on its richness, variety, and beauty — tipping the scales so that the positive outweighs the negative. Collectively, all the providers of cultural activity need to work harder, in a cohesive and strategic fashion. Those who promote and manage Northern Ireland need to do more to emphasise the positive if we are to attract more tourists to enjoy our rich and varied culture.
One Member in particular has referred to the Northern Ireland Tourist Board, and there is no doubt that it did come in for some criticism. However, would the tourist boards of Wales, Scotland, England, or just across the border in the Republic of Ireland have done a better job through the 30 plus years of terrorism? I doubt it very much.
I commend this report to the Assembly. I know that the Minister of Culture, Arts and Leisure will give it serious consideration.

Mr Jim Shannon: We hae a report theday that can chairt the oncum o cultural tourism for a fair fek yeirs ti cum, help forder thrift an mak tourism in our Province yung again. A mukkil betterment can be brocht aboot, but anelie gif a co-ordinate plan is putten thegither an actit on.
The heid raison fowk cums ti Norlin Airland is veisitin feres an freinds, an A believe that’s whaur we maun stairt biggin up tourism potential. Awmaist 45% o aw fowk veisitin the Province faws intil that categorie. Monie o us believes that tourism is wantin virr an smeddum at the meinit. Takkin tent til that thocht, that’s whitfor it’s that importin ti pouss forrit wi forderin furth-o-state cultural tourism insteid o daein it in the fushionless wey the NITB’s duin it up til nou. Alang wi tyauvin at forderin tourism, the local mercat maun pley its pairt wi a qualitie airts sector no blate ti grup the potential for furth-o-state veisitors. Lat’s be perfit apen here — veisitors ti Norlin Airland disnae cum luikin a "sand and sun" holiday, for we cannae gie onie uphauld for the lyke. Whit we can gie thaim in Norlin Airland is cultur, heirskip an the airts, an as a niche mercat it haulds on growein. The NITB haes seen a meiserable failyie in its ettils at forderin an mercatin the Province an maun awn its responsibeilitie for tint yeirs in tourism growthe an oncum. Lat’s tak a keek at the feigurs — juist 1·8% o Norlin Airland domestic product cums fae tourism, but the Erse Republic, Scotland an Wales aw cums oot aroun 6%. It’s patent that the’r a bittie makkin up ti dae, an, again, the evident is that the’r no mukkil been duin for yeirs. September 11 haes been a catalyst for the USA an, atweill, the haill warld, an it’s thocht that a focus on the mercats o Europe, Gret Britain an the Erse Republic wad gie us mair o a heft. Still an on, the USA can — an soud — be a pynt for cultural tourism. USA ceitizens haes a hert-hunger for finndin thair ruits an historie, an that mercat cannae be slung a deifie aither.
Today’s report can chart the future for cultural tourism for a great many years to come. It can help to bring an economic boost and rejuvenate tourism in the Province. A vast improvement can be made, but only if a co-ordinated plan is put together and acted upon.
The principal reason that people come to Northern Ireland is to visit friends and relatives. That is where we must start to increase tourism potential. Almost 45% of all people visiting the Province fall into that category. Many of us feel that tourism currently has no push or energy behind it. Therefore, it is vital that out-of-state cultural tourism is promoted aggressively and not in the namby-pamby way practised by the Northern Ireland Tourist Board up until now.
In tandem with aggressive tourism promotion, the local market must play its part with a quality arts sector, anxious to seize the potential for out-of-state visitors. Let us be perfectly honest: visitors do not come to Northern Ireland because they are seeking a "sand and sun" holiday; we cannot guarantee that. In Northern Ireland, we offer the growing niche market of cultural heritage and the arts.
The Northern Ireland Tourist Board has failed miserably to promote and market the Province and has been singularly responsible for the lost years of tourism growth and development. Let us look at the figures. Only 1·8% of Northern Ireland’s gross domestic product comes from tourism, while the Republic of Ireland, Scotland and Wales all average approximately 6%. It is apparent that there is some catching up to do, and there is evidence that not much has been done for years.
The events of 11 September were a catalyst for the USA and the whole world. It is felt that a focus on the markets of Europe, Great Britain and the Republic of Ireland would be more advantageous. However, the USA can, and should, be a point for cultural tourism. American citizens are hungry to find their roots and hungry for history; that potential market cannot be ignored either.
We need world-class events. The rest of Great Britain has several world-class and major international events. We must see a push to bring at least one or two events to the Province each year. While the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment and the roles of the Northern Ireland Tourist Board and Tourism Ireland Ltd must be clarified, and the benefits for our Province must then be taken advantage of, it is not enough to talk about what must be done. Let us see a clear strategy within specific goals to develop each sector.
It is especially worrying that so many of the organisations giving evidence were critical of their dealings with the Northern Ireland Tourist Board. Most Members have referred to that. There has been a breakdown in the Tourist Board’s customer services, and failure to return phone calls or to respond to requests paints a very damming picture of it. District councils have an important part to play in promoting cultural tourism. In fairness to it, the Tourist Board has acknowledged that it could improve on what it is doing. We urge it to galvanise itself, grasp the nettle and actively promote cultural tourism.
We have looked at the diversity of themes and sectors and at the responsibilities we have for our cultural heritage. How can we encourage a good quality of life for the whole community? Promotion and development could be undertaken by the cultural strategy for Northern Ireland.
Cultural tourism can unlock many doors to benefit the entire Province, but that can only happen if the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment and the Tourist Board, as part of that Department, grasp the initiative collectively. Up until now, they have failed to do so. They should accept constructive criticism, accept that things have gone wrong in the past and move forward with zeal and enthusiasm so that all tangible benefits are grasped and made the most of. It is in front of us, like an apple ready to be picked, but we must get it right. That is more vital today than it has ever been. I commend the report’s recommendations to the House.

Mr Ivan Davis: Reference was made during a debate yesterday to empty Benches, and we have empty Benches again today. All Members in the Chamber, with the exception of Mr Gibson, are members of the Committee for Culture, Arts and Leisure. This is one of the most important reports to be brought before the Assembly. When we read the papers we cannot fail to see the words "culture", "arts" and "leisure", yet we see from the gathering today just how interested Members who are not on that Committee are. Indeed, there are more people in the Public Gallery than in the Chamber. However, I welcome the opportunity to comment on the report of the Committee’s inquiry into cultural tourism and the arts, and I will focus on the strategic planning and development section. That section says that the Tourist Board does not have an overall objective that shows what it is trying to achieve and what its limitations are. Every successful organisation needs to have a purpose, and the work of the organisation should be focused around it.
The Committee took evidence from several organisations that referred to the poor performance of the Tourist Board. I note that its co-operative plan for 2002-05 has a vision of increasing the number of visitors by 7% each year over that period. The Committee hopes that the board will recognise the important part that culture can play in attracting more visitors to Northern Ireland. As a result, recommendation 40 says that
"Culture and heritage should be promoted by the NITB as key brands, particularly for the special interest market."
I want to promote recommendation 41. It refers to
"the potential for establishing a Heritage Day"
and what that would offer to tourism. The objective behind such a day would be to emphasise the importance of celebrating the wonderful culture that exists in Northern Ireland.
It is vital that the Department take the lead in pursuing that matter, working closely with other Departments and bodies. Various groups support the idea of a heritage day, and it has been suggested that the theme of the day could be changed annually to ensure that all cultural groups are supported and represented.
The Tourist Board must undertake research to analyse and understand exactly what attracts visitors to our Province. By so doing, it will be able to determine what will encourage potential visitors in future, and thus it will be able to increase visitor numbers. That task must not be undertaken in isolation but in close conjunction with other relevant tourist bodies in mainland UK and the Republic of Ireland.
Departments, district councils, non-departmental public bodies, attraction operators, accommodation providers, transport undertakings, tour companies and other bodies, such as the National Trust and the Northern Ireland Events Company, must work together more effectively. In that respect, the creation of Tourism Ireland Ltd should promote greater co-operation and allow the Northern Ireland Tourist Board to invest greater energy and resources in promoting Northern Ireland to the rest of the UK and the Republic of Ireland.
The formation of formal local networks of cultural partners and tourist attraction operators is important. Those networks would develop theme-based package tours and trails, and they should be assisted by local tourism action plans, with attraction clusters within a specific locale that would allow visitors to have a range of cultural and heritage experiences.
The report states that the Committee was encouraged by the work of the individual product groups and their working parties in the cultural tourism partnership. Specific action must be taken on the conclusion and strategies outlined in the 2002 progress report, including the development of networks and branding exercises. Recommendation 47 suggests that policies and measures should be monitored, evaluated and reviewed to allow for continual improvement in the industry, and appropriate structures should be established to allow for such improvement.
I thank the members of the Committee, the Chairperson and the Deputy Chairperson for the work that they have put in, and I record my thanks to the Committee staff for their commitment and attention to detail. I hope that the Minister will give the report the serious consideration that it rightly deserves.

Mr Oliver Gibson: I am not a member of the Committee for Culture, Arts and Leisure, but I support the report. I have a long-time vested interest in cultural tourism. Many years ago, perhaps to my own discredit, I promoted, in the Omagh District Council area, the idea of basing a 51-mile trail on the inspirational points and places of W F Marshall, who was one of the first people to broadcast on the BBC in Northern Ireland. He was an academic of great power. He made a special contribution to the literary world by recognising that the area in which he lived in mid-Tyrone had a unique and distinctive dialect. So distinct was it, as indicated by his research, that W F Marshall was commissioned by the BBC to assist in the production of Shakespeare’s great play ‘As You Like It’ in the original language of Shakespeare, which is recognised as being the mid-Tyrone dialect. Given that vested interest and the strong call that was made for the retention of townlands, I commend the Committee on the excellent report.
However, no methodology for retaining townlands was suggested. I have struggled with the issue for many years in my council area, where townlands have been eliminated and replaced by manufactured road names. I live seven miles from Omagh, in the village of Beragh. That seven-mile area is known by one name — Donaghanie — but it is made up of 11 townlands. I have encouraged Omagh District Council to insert the names of townlands in red print on road signs. It is a greater expense, but the council receives sponsorship for the project. A practical effort must be made.
I have encouraged other community groups to use local stones to mark out townland boundaries, but permission for that is required from the Department of the Environment and the Department for Regional Development’s Roads Service. I know that the Minister would be interested in supporting that idea.
Much criticism has been levelled at the Tourist Board, but everyone can contribute in his own area. Local pride and heritage can be brought to the fore and utilised as an important tourist product. In the town that I represent, the names of such musical geniuses as Dominic Kirwan, Brian Coll and numerous showbands are written large in history. The same applies to local poets such as John Montague, Benedict Kiely, Matt Mulcahy, R L Marshall and W F Marshall. Every area has similarly well-known people. Mid-Tyrone did not have tourism potential until it used the inspirational points of the 51-mile Marshall trail through unspoilt, undiluted, unpolluted countryside. That rural quietude brings tranquillity to visitors from the concrete conurbations.
I support the report, and I advocate that the Minister encourage the practical, rather than aspirational, retention of townland names. It can be done, and I encourage him to treat the matter seriously. Northern Ireland obtained the concept of townlands from Sudan. The idea was imported during the third and fourth centuries, when Coptic traders arrived at the Shannon and other estuary rivers. Townlands are particular to Ireland and north Sudan. Let us retain a custom that is almost unique to Northern Ireland, so that we can give it a special focus as part of our cultural heritage.

Mr Michael McGimpsey: I welcome the Committee’s report, and I acknowledge its breadth. Its 56 recommendations offer a means to maximise the potential of cultural tourism and the arts in Northern Ireland. It will come as no surprise to the House that, given the substantial number of recommendations and considering the short time that I have had the report, I shall want to give it more detailed consideration before I make my formal reply to the Committee. Moreover, some of the recommendations fall to other Ministers, and I shall wish to consult them before responding. However, by way of early comment, I welcome the Committee’s recognition of the importance of the arts in adding value to cultural tourism and of the extent to which the arts can enrich our lives and make positive economic and social contributions to the development of Northern Ireland.
Recognition of culture as an economic generator is not a new concept. It is being employed in parts of Europe — Bilbao and Rotterdam spring to mind. It is a tool — an economic generator — that has been highly successful in those areas, and I am certain that we can use it to good effect in Northern Ireland. Many Members have mentioned the areas that we can utilise to create economic well-being as well as to enhance our image and self-esteem.
I also welcome the Committee’s pragmatism in its approach to issues such as sustainability and long-term viability. We have already witnessed the difficulties that have occurred in projects such as the St Patrick Centre in Downpatrick and the Navan Centre in Armagh. The need for financial rigour, as well as intellectual rigour, for projects such as those is essential, and their absence will almost certainly lead to sustainability problems. The importance of properly addressing that issue is essential if some of the opportunities identified in the report are to be brought to fruition. Too often with such projects the capital investment can be found, but not enough consideration is given to the revenue consequences and the fact that many of the projects will create an annual revenue deficit for several years. If the number of visitors is not estimated realistically, we are liable to run into problems, as we have done at the Navan Centre and the St Patrick Centre.
The Department of Culture, Arts and Leisure is addressing issues that are particularly relevant to it. Those include the welcome focus on the development of the Titanic Quarter and the telling of the Titanic story. With that in mind, I urge Committee members to visit the Thompson dry dock to see its potential and that of the surrounding area in order to promote Belfast’s industrial, maritime and aviation centre. For those who are not familiar with the story, the Thompson dry dock was built in 1910 and is an awesome piece of space. It was extended by 30ft to allow the Titanic to squeeze in, and it sits down there just as it was built. We should look at how we can develop that to retain the dry dock features and the pump house that sits alongside it and at how we can use it to tell the Titanic story. Belfast is the only city in the world that can tell that story.
HMS Caroline is currently in the Alexandra dock. It is a 1914, first world war, light cruiser built for the Royal Navy. It is the last survivor of the Battle of Jutland and is a priceless and irreplaceable artefact. The ship is of the Titanic era and built in Titanic fashion; much of it was rivet built. We have huge potential there, and I urge the Committee to look at that.
Next door to that, the Belfast Harbour Commissioners plan to develop a portion of the wharf to enable large cruise liners to dock in Belfast. We have all that potential sitting cheek by jowl with the science park. The Nomadic has been mentioned. Two tenders were especially built to carry passengers from Cherbourg out to the Titanic, and one of those was the Nomadic. It looks like a mini Titanic, and it would be a wonderful asset if it were situated in Belfast. However, the Department has looked at moving it from Paris, and there are major cost implications. Extra bridges have been built over the Seine, where it sits, and it would mean sinking the ship to take it below the bridges. There would be major engineering difficulties in retrieving the ship from Paris and major resource implications too. When it was being considered I envisaged difficulty in finding resources. However, the Department will keep it in mind.
Promoting the cultural quarter concept, art and public spaces, accessibility to arts facilities and the development of cultural product in theatre, dance and music are also to be welcomed as is the identification of roots tourism in the international genealogy market. The Public Records Office will play a central role in that. I recently hosted an event in the Long Gallery for overseas visitors for just that type of tourism. Digitising records will play a key role as they become an easily accessible resource through new technology to visitors to the Internet.
Those are ideas that the Public Records Office and other areas of the Department are very much aware of and aligned to. We feel strongly about getting new technology into various areas. The Assembly saw the first part of that initiative with the electronic libraries for Northern Ireland (ELFNI) project early in 2002. That was a £36 million contract to develop computer technology in all our libraries. That is a step forward because those computers will play a major part in future for genealogy and other interests that visitors might have.
Furthermore, the Department is making progress on the development of language and the use of the arts to explore our common heritage, and I welcome, in principle, the identification of the need for a dedicated art gallery. However, that has a major cost implication, to which I shall return. I am pleased that the report acknowledged the importance of specific managed events alongside, for example, locally organised festivals to encourage tourism.
Several Members referred to the importance of district councils. Much work is being done there. The Department is working through the cultural forum to ensure that each of the 26 district councils will have local cultural strategies that complement one another and have the Department of Culture, Arts and Leisure’s overall aims in its publications. That is happening and is an area of activity that will ensure that councils complement the Department’s aims as set out in ‘Face to Face’, the sector’s vision for arts, for culture and for unlocking creativity. The cultural forum has a key role to play in providing a broader approach to help deliver much of what is contained in the report.
Mr McCarthy and others, such as Mr Gibson, talked about townland names. Recently, during Question Time, I referred to the common address file project, which will enable townland names to be added to addresses. The Department now has funding to get the common address file into operation, and that will ensure that Government Departments and councils use it initially and that there will be a ready bridge across from the townland names archive straight into the common address file. The Department has the means to do that — and it has the will to do it.
The report’s recommendations on creative industry align with the Department’s work and with that of the interdepartmental creativity action group. In particular, support to enable the Northern Ireland Film and Television Commission to develop the sector is being pursued by my Colleagues and me through Executive programme funds. The Arts Council also fulfils a co-ordinating role in the craft sector, which, although it is not featured in the report, is another important element of cultural tourism. It appears that some issues are not covered in the report.
We are all aware that money makes everything possible. The report rightly identified funding as being critical to future development. However, the report stopped short of quantifying any of the costs associated with the areas identified for the development and of offering any practical view on from where future funding might be obtained.
For example, the museum of sea and sky and the museum of creative arts could cost in the region of £100 million, as could the Ulster canal and the Lagan navigation projects combined. If the money were there, we could deliver everything that is contained in the report. However, we must live within our means, and expectations must be realistic.
There are ways to find that money. We must be imaginative and inventive, but we must also understand that the Executive and Government cannot simply write cheques for those amounts. On top of the capital amount is the resource implication after construction. Those areas need careful examination and investigation. It taxes me greatly, but we are actively considering funding options. Unless the resources are found, we cannot deliver what we are talking about and looking for. We cannot satisfy expectations, but we are aware of the value of cultural tourism as an economic driver.
The bid for 2008 Capital of Culture and the potential of sport as a key component of our culture did not feature in the report, nor is there any acknowledgement of the Cathedral Quarter in Belfast and the "hub" concept — something else on which we are actively working. The Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment is also conducting major tourism reviews. Several Members mentioned the Tourist Board. The Department takes the views expressed seriously. A major tourism review is under way, and Belfast City Council is also undertaking a review, but neither is mentioned in the report. I am sure that the Committee will be anxious to look at those reports when they are published.
The report is an important step forward. I commend the Committee for the effort that has gone into it. I shall give the Committee a detailed response to the report in due course, and I look forward to working closely with Committee members to see what might realistically be delivered.

Mr Eamonn ONeill: I welcome all the contributions made on the report and thank all Members for their time and consideration.
One issue that sprang to mind from several contributions, especially that of the Deputy Chairperson of the Committee, was the definition of culture. She used the UNESCO definition, which reminded me of the visit that some Committee members made to Kanturk to attend a culture conference in County Cork. At the conference, an academic from Wales described culture as "the central thing". She also said that in Welsh, the closest interpretation of the word for "culture" describes the move from being wild to being civilised. That is an interesting concept about culture and its meaning.
The enthusiasm with which Committee members have responded to the report in this debate indicates the level of work that the Committee had undertaken. I thank them once again for all that work.
The Deputy Chairperson mentioned a good example of where we, as a community, can fail in dealing with the concept of cultural tourism when she mentioned the Pennsylvanian millionaires.
It is a great pity that such opportunities — and we know of many — go a-begging because we have no facility to take advantage of them.
Mrs Nelis rightly highlighted the Northern Ireland Tourist Board’s annual summary of attractions. Although the Committee was concerned about the clear shortcomings of that important data, it was more concerned about the board’s method of gathering it. The report emphasises that that methodology must be examined and improved. The Tourist Board wrote to various organisations to request information, but it published only the details that it was given. That procedure is hardly suitable to provide an educated and scientific understanding of what is happening.
Ian Adamson’s insight and knowledge made a tremendous contribution to our debate and the preparation of the report. He spoke accurately about the alienation and break-up of communities and the lack of proper regeneration strategies. The definition of alienation as "the absence of culture" was also heard in Kanturk. That is an interesting thought. Dr Adamson highlighted the importance of making an inventory of our heritage, built and otherwise. Without that proper identification, we cannot preserve and care for the most important elements of our heritage. Local trails and tours were among the recommendations that the Committee sought.
David Hilditch referred to the criticism that was made of the Tourist Board. A pattern of criticism ran throughout the report, and it is right that Members should highlight it. The Tourist Board had major problems in addition to the current criticisms of it. The criticism was made by those who gave evidence, rather than by Committee members. Mr Hilditch was correct: almost everyone had a criticism to make. I recall only one positive comment, and that may have come from the Arts Council of Northern Ireland. The report might have included a few criticisms of that body. The Committee reflects the weight of evidence, and it is part of its job to listen to practitioners and other witnesses, put together their views coherently and constructively and present them to the Minister and the Department of Culture, Arts and Leisure.
Kieran McCarthy, whom we all recognise as the champion of townland names, again made a good case. Unfortunately, Oliver Gibson is not present, but I thank him for his interesting and valuable contribution. It would be good if townlands could be incorporated into rural road signs to inform a traveller that he is leaving one townland and entering another. Mr Gibson said that our suggestion was aspirational; on the contrary, it was a clear and definite recommendation of usage by all Departments and official organs. That is not aspirational; it is practical. Its achievement would be a major step towards our goal. The Minister correctly referred to the common address file project, and the Committee recommended that that be supported. Once that is in place, there will be no excuse for not using townland names.
Frazer Agnew spoke with considerable passion about the poor record that we have for preserving and restoring our old linen mills and machinery. A great deal of work is happening elsewhere to preserve such heritage, but we seem to be relentless in our neglect of the infrastructure, and Mr Agnew’s comments reflect the Committee’s concerns.
Mr Agnew also made a telling point about the accessibility of heritage sites. We are not very good at signposting, but if we put our minds to it, we should be able to address those problems.
Jim Wilson concentrated on our image problem. Internationally, what image do people have of us? What films do they see that are made in Northern Ireland about Northern Ireland? What documentaries do they see? Unfortunately, the negative image invariably comes across, and Mr Wilson is right to draw our attention to that. Reported news must be the truth, but the Committee’s report attempts to get people to focus on the positive qualities of life here.
Jim Shannon made an interesting contribution and, once again, demonstrated the wealth of cultural diversity here by using Ulster Scots in his introduction. I thank him for that. He referred to the need for a cultural strategy to set goals and objectives and to galvanise all those involved.
Ivan Davis referred to the low attendance during most of the debate. I was delighted to hear that the Republic of Ireland won 3 – 0, and I congratulate the team. It is hard to blame Members who wanted to watch the match, but we cannot use that excuse every day on which attendance is low. More Members are here now — perhaps something of interest is to begin shortly.
Ivan Davis also highlighted the idea of a heritage day. I hope that people consider that closely as a neat recommendation that could do much to create the image that we want to project, as opposed to the negative image that we have.
I thank the Minister for his full attention. I recognise his interest in the Committee’s work and thank him for his support for the majority of our recommendations. He commented on the financial implications of some of them, and it seemed as though he had not considered fully the financial recommendations that we made. However, when the Committee considers them more closely with the Department, the Minister may realise that they contain a lot of financial detail. We hope to widen the possibilities because the funding recommendations contain opportunities for us to consider imaginative approaches. We recognise that the proposals could be expensive, but many of the recommendations could be fulfilled at little cost. We need to focus our resources and commitment better on what we want to achieve. It is possible. I commend the report.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved:
That this Assembly approves the Report of the Committee for Culture, Arts and Leisure on its Inquiry into Cultural Tourism and the Arts and calls on the Executive to ensure that the Committee’s recommendations are evaluated and implemented at the earliest opportunity.

Incident at Belfast Institute of Further and Higher Education, Tower Street Campus

Ms Jane Morrice: I have received notice from the Minister for Employment and Learning that she wishes to make a statement on an incident at the Belfast Institute of Further and Higher Education’s Tower Street campus on 7 June 2002.

Ms Carmel Hanna: I wish to make a brief statement about the events at a campus of the Belfast Institute of Further and Higher Education last week.
At around 11.00 am on Friday 7 June, an incident occurred at the Tower Street campus of the Belfast Institute of Further and Higher Education during which staff and students were subjected to disgraceful and degrading behaviour. I understand that the details of the incident are under investigation by the Police Service of Northern Ireland, and for that reason I do not wish to engage in any discussion of them. I am sure that the Assembly will join me in unequivocally condemning the incident and in demanding respect for the essential neutrality of all educational establishments.
Our society has suffered extensively from civil disorder for over three decades. We should be thankful that during that time, with a few notable exceptions, universities, colleges and schools have been allowed to carry out their task of educating children, young people and more mature students without fear or favour. That has particularly been the case in respect of further education, which by its nature provides educational opportunities to all sections of the community in its numerous campuses and outreach centres.
That neutrality was breached on Friday morning, when staff and students were interrupted by an incursion by people from outside whose interest was palpably not in further education and training. Such behaviour has no place in any decent society and no place in the neutral surroundings of any educational establishment.
At a time when the stresses and strains of examinations should be the only consideration for students and staff, it is unacceptable that any institution should have to close its buildings, reschedule its examinations and help staff and students cope with the experience of sectarian threats. The Assembly should be united in its unequivocal condemnation of the events of last Friday.
I trust that the experiences of staff and students will not deflect any of them from achieving the grades and results that they need for their careers or their educational progress. My thoughts, support and sympathy go out to the management, staff and students of the Tower Street campus.
I appeal to the communities in east Belfast, and, indeed, in all areas, to preserve the essential neutrality of educational establishments, which are designed to meet their needs irrespective of religion or political opinion. I am heartened by the fact that several local community leaders have already visited the Tower Street campus to express their regret that such an incident took place and to demonstrate their support for the staff and students. I will visit the campus when the management and staff consider it appropriate.
I conclude by reiterating my unequivocal condemnation of that action and by underlining the principle of respect for the neutrality of educational establishments.

Dr Esmond Birnie: I am very pleased that the Minister has made her statement, and I concur with what she said. I also agree with the statement of one of the relevant teachers’ unions, the NASUWT, on 10 June, that the action was reprehensible because of the successful way in which further education colleges have integrated Protestant and Catholic students over many years.
Will it be necessary for the Belfast Institute of Further and Higher Education and other further education colleges around the Province to take extra security measures? If that is the case, what are the budgetary implications, and how would the Department respond to the extra financial strain?

Ms Carmel Hanna: I hope that this is an isolated incident. No one wants to make fortresses out of colleges or any educational establishments. All colleges consider their security requirements and take whatever steps are necessary to protect staff and students in their local communities. The college at Tower Street has already engaged one further security person. I am not aware of the financial implications.

Mr Tommy Gallagher: The behaviour referred to is completely unacceptable. I draw attention to an incident in the Holy Land area of Belfast where an attack on a young student from County Fermanagh, Marius Rooney, took place. He is still seriously ill, and I am sure all Members hope that he will make a good recovery. Does the Minister agree that that behaviour is reprehensible and that we need to redouble our efforts to bring those who carry out such attacks to justice?

Ms Carmel Hanna: Sadly, attacks on individuals are increasing. I know of the attack on that young man about 10 days ago. He is still seriously ill. I do not know the circumstances, but I am aware that some of the attacks have sectarian undertones. Some of them are just a sad reflection of the increase in crime on our streets. I agree with the Member that we totally and utterly condemn all these attacks, regardless of motive.

Mr Edwin Poots: We all concur that such behaviour is unacceptable. I would highlight the difference in attitudes between the Minister for Employment and Learning and the Minister of Education when schoolchildren wearing their school uniforms were attacked in Strabane by so-called supporters of the Irish football team.
When schoolchildren could not enter Londonderry city centre because they were wearing certain school uniforms the Minister of Education did not appear before the House. I thank the Minister for Employment and Learning for bringing this matter to the House and making it clear that sectarianism is unacceptable in the school place and that sectarian attacks on schoolchildren are also unacceptable. I wish the Minister of Education would take a leaf out of the book of the Minister for Employment and Learning.

Ms Carmel Hanna: Sectarian attacks are wrong and unacceptable, regardless of the location or the person involved.

Ms Mary Nelis: Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. Has the Minister been advised that this is not the first instance of students and staff being threatened at the Belfast Institute of Further and Higher Education’s Tower Street campus? The fine arts examination was cancelled. Will the Minister give special consideration to their students who will have to resit their examinations? What measures did the board of governors have in place to protect the students and staff, who had to lock themselves in classrooms for protection?

Ms Carmel Hanna: Most examinations were relocated to other campuses. I assume that special arrangements will be made for any students who were unable to sit their examinations.
I am not aware of any other attacks on Tower Street, but I am conscious that, sadly, over the past 30 years there have been at least five brutal attacks on people in education establishments. A headmaster was killed in his classroom, a school bus driver was killed and a classroom was booby-trapped, resulting in the death of a policeman. Lecturer Edgar Graham was killed outside Queen’s University, and a lecturer at the Magherafelt campus of the North East Institute of Further and Higher Education was murdered in his classroom. Perhaps even more such sad events have occurred.

Prof Monica McWilliams: I thank the Minister for the statement, but I am concerned that, given the serious nature of the incident, the statement was not made in the House yesterday. The fact that young students were lined up against a wall and asked their religion, no matter what that religion might be, shows the depths to which this society has sunk. Will the Minister co-operate with the Minister of the Environment and the Minister of Education because this matter concerns agencies other than her own Department?
Signs are being put up on the walls on the routes to the college and to schools that say "No Taigs from Short Strand beyond this point". If such signs were put up referring to Protestants, every Member would condemn them.
School principals have told me that they are concerned that this September students will not attend the Tower Street campus and that they may have to find courses elsewhere. Principals are concerned that these young students have only one option and that they now have nowhere to go. What arrangements has the Minister put in place to address this problem?

Ms Carmel Hanna: Alternative arrangements have been made for staff and students. I expect that special arrangements will be made for all those students. I will personally look into the matter if there is a problem. I apologise that the statement was not made yesterday.
The atmosphere is very tense in some parts of Northern Ireland, especially in Belfast. I will co-operate with all Departments and do anything I can to alleviate that tension.

Dr Ian Adamson: I join with the Minister in condemning the appalling incident at the Belfast Institute of Further and Higher Education in Tower Street. In the light of our common concern for neutrality in our education establishments, what steps are being taken to ensure that Queen’s University and its Students’ Union become less of a cold house for Protestants and Unionists?

Ms Carmel Hanna: It is up to everyone, especially those of us in leadership roles, to work together to ensure that all students feel comfortable in all our establishments.

Mr Alban Maginness: The incident in Tower Street highlights the whole issue of sectarianism in this city and throughout our society, and this House must take the matter seriously. We must address it vigorously, as if it were a disease that affects us all. It is insufficient to respond to one incident. We must develop a strategy for dealing with sectarianism no matter where it manifests itself — in the classroom, in colleges, or in the street. We must deal with it.
The Minister has emphasised the sacrosanct nature of neutrality in an educational establishment. Is there any danger, as a result of this sectarian incident, that the future of the Tower Street campus might be under threat? Also, will those students whose examinations have had to be relocated get a sympathetic marking to compensate for the trauma that they clearly and manifestly went through as a result of this incident?

Ms Carmel Hanna: There is no question of relocating the Tower Street campus, and I would expect any students experiencing difficulties with their examinations because of this incident to get a sympathetic hearing.
Sectarianism is a contagious disease in this society. Unfortunately, we have a certain tolerance of a level of sectarianism in our everyday life, and we must proactively work together if we are to eradicate this disease.

Mr Sam Foster: I apologise sincerely to you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and to the House for my mobile phone ringing unceremoniously this afternoon.
I am heartened, as the Minister is, by the fact that some local community leaders have already visited Tower Street campus to express their regret that such an incident should take place, and have offered their support to all the staff and students. One has to condemn any sort of irresponsibility from whatever gang, or from wherever, and any form of intimidation. If such behaviour escalates, then there is trouble ahead.
This may be beyond the Minister’s remit; it is more to do with education. For many years, students from controlled schools in County Fermanagh have suffered intimidation when going home on school buses to border areas. Undoubtedly, this has eased a little, but it has been a difficult situation for many of them.
Is the Minister aware of the intimidation that grammar school pupils suffered recently in Strabane when the Republic won its football match? I congratulate the Republic on the win, but some people are using and abusing the situation.

Ms Carmel Hanna: Many of us are aware of issues of sectarianism in our communities. It is not any respecter of place, person, or religion — it happens in all areas and to all people. However, until we work together, seriously and proactively, we will not eradicate this scourge.

Mr David Ervine: I concur with the Minister’s sentiments. Will she offer to us her knowledge of the police assessment that she must have received on any paramilitary involvement in the attack on the Tower Street campus? Since she is unable to give us details of previous attacks, will she also confirm why we should have had such an occurrence after thirty years of nothing?
Will the Minister look at the constituency in which Tower Street falls? Will she consider that conditions may have existed that certainly do not encourage me to condone what happened, but which may be a symptom rather than a cause? There is a greater cause; is the Minister aware of it?

Ms Carmel Hanna: I said that an investigation by the Police Service of Northern Ireland is taking place, so it would not be appropriate to comment on that.
Why is this happening? It is happening because we have a problem with sectarianism in this society. I hope that everyone would join me in condemning unequivocally this outrageous incident, regardless of any background, "what abouts" or "wherefores".

Mr Peter Robinson: I welcome the Minister’s initiative in making a statement on this issue, and I support the content of her statement. Elected representatives have a duty to speak out on issues, whether it is convenient for them to do so or not. The intimidation of people who are attempting to get an education is reprehensible. I am sure that the whole House accepts that that procedure is totally unacceptable in any civilised society. Therefore, I have no reservation in my condemnation.
The Minister has expressed the hope that it would be an isolated incident; that is also my hope. My hope is somewhat raised by the fact that all of my findings suggest that there was nothing organised about this event. There appears to have been no involvement of any paramilitary organisation. It is more likely to be the result of the reaction of people in the area, which is currently tense as a result of the IRA-orchestrated violence in that part of east Belfast. Like the Minister, I trust that there will be no reoccurrence of the incident and that there will be no detriment to the education of the people involved.

Ms Carmel Hanna: I welcome the Member’s statement and his unequivocal condemnation of this act.

Erection of Unauthorised Terrorist Memorials

Mr Sam Foster: I beg to move
That this Assembly rejects the offensive trend of erecting memorials throughout Northern Ireland by Republican elements in memory of terrorists who tortured citizens of this state for decades by their campaign of murder, maiming and destruction and calls upon the Executive to take immediate action to remove those memorials which have been erected without permission.
The motion is important to the many relatives of those who were foully murdered by the terrorists who held this land to ransom for many years.
The erection of forms of memorial to those who for decades wrought havoc and destruction on the people of this state is, at least, highly offensive, in-your-face and profoundly insulting. It is uncaring, uncompassionate and grossly irresponsible. It is an offensive taunt to a community which has suffered broken hearts, broken limbs and broken homes and been left with heartbroken widows, mothers, fathers, brothers and sisters and many orphans.
Sinn Féin still lauds, and associates with, the gunman and the murderer, despite the fact that its members now act in Government here in Stormont, as Ministers acting on behalf of Her Majesty The Queen in this part of her realm.
The preponderance of different types of memorials in Fermanagh intends to rile and hurt. The memorials are not intended for the purposes of respect — only for abuse. The most terrible lie is not that which is uttered but that which is lived.
There will be a plea on behalf of heroes today, but can anyone in the Chamber who professes adherence to a faith and belief in the Living Lord call terrorists "heroes" or "sons of the brave"? Could those who blew two of my colleagues to pieces outside Enniskillen one night many years ago be called heroes? I remember Alfie Johnston and Jimmy Eames well.
What about the terrorists who murdered Mrs Bullock at her doorway, and then went into her home and murdered her husband Tommy? What about those who went into the Earl of Erne County Primary School at Teemore and murdered the school principal, George Saunderson, as he had a cup of tea? What about those who murdered Alexander Abercrombie as he sat on his tractor, or those who murdered Willie Burleigh when he attended an auction? What about those who bravely murdered Tommy John Fletcher at Garrison, or those who murdered John McVitty at Magheraveely as he did his farming chores? What about those who brutally murdered my cousin, Charlie Johnston, in cold blood near St Anne’s Cathedral as he, a director of a travel agency in Waring Street, walked to his work? What about those who set off the Enniskillen bomb on Remembrance Day in 1987? I was present at the cenotaph on that day of carnage. Two people died in my hands. I tried to console them as they bled to death. Twelve people died in that atrocity.
What about the terrorists who caused the La Mon House Hotel hell-on-earth inferno? What about the Shankill Road bomb, Teebane Cross, the Ballygawley bus bomb, the murder of the soldiers at Narrow Water Castle, or the Kingsmills murders? What about all the individual murders that have taken place over the years? What about the Omagh bomb activists, who may eventually seek to be called heroes at some time in the future?
We had ethnic cleansing in my constituency of Fermanagh and South Tyrone. I have only referred to some of the many dastardly acts of murder and aggression perpetrated on citizens of that community by terrorists over the years — terrorists who are now being hailed as heroes by Sinn Féin.
Terrorists — either so-called Loyalists or Republicans — can never be accorded hero status by any decent individual. It is grossly offensive and insulting to many people in Northern Ireland.
The Hassard and Love families in the Belleek area of Fermanagh are grievously mortified by the erection of the memorial to terrorists beside where their loved ones were assassinated coming home from doing an honest day’s work. Is that action not in-your-face offensive? I must emphasise that point — it certainly is in-your-face offensive.
Since then, another memorial has been erected in Enniskillen to the memory of Bobby Sands. It is on the site where a memorial to those who died during the famine had been solemnly dedicated a couple of years ago. The words "respect", "honesty" and "decency" are not in the thinking of Republicanism — they never were, and they never will be. This is just about Sinn Féin becoming the largest anti-British party in Northern Ireland at the expense of anyone who gets in its way. It has no scruples; it rides roughshod over the feelings of everyone, regardless of the hurt caused.
I appreciate that the blood relatives of those who have lost their lives mourn the deaths of their loved ones. However, it seems that that mourning should only happen when Sinn Féin dictates and in a way that it determines. That is shameful. Does anyone believe that the erection of a memorial to a terrorist on unhallowed ground will ease the pain for the relatives? Is that sacrilege?
Republicanism does that to seek political gain at the expense of the relatives who mourn the death of their flesh and blood. What sacrilege is being played out by those who profess innocence while making lying accusations of harassment in Northern Ireland?
I have been prepared to give those who have sinned in the eyes of the Almighty the opportunity to show repentance and remorse for their association with evil deeds over the past decades — for the well-being of this state and within the family of Britons. They have failed miserably to do so. They have been given a chance to redeem themselves and to show good, honest citizenship. But no — they want their pound of flesh, and they disregard the feelings of those around them.
They have been given the opportunity to serve in Executive positions in the Assembly, despite the fact that over the years they have associated with those who endeavoured to destroy this country, burned its towns and villages, and murdered and maimed our people. I say to them: look at the hands of those you call heroes. They are stained with the blood of our loved ones and their loved ones. Can they have a conscience at all? Can they barefacedly go on with their deceit and unadulterated, undiluted hypocrisy?
Those people have ignored at least three Departments — and, indeed, law and order — in their erection of offensive memorials. However, they expound here regularly, superficially filled with pretence about other issues. The Department of the Environment — my former Department — the Department for Regional Development, and the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development must ensure that their responsibilities are not eroded and overrun by Republican stridency. The Department for Social Development is also involved. Departments cannot be seen to fail their remit or their responsibilities.
Monuments, by their very nature, are political statements. Those wildcat memorials are inimical to the healing process that Sinn Féin purports to espouse. They stir up hatreds, bitter memories, and fears and feelings that we all hoped that we could leave behind.
Evidence of Sinn Féin’s being involved in stirring up community strife in places such as north Belfast, its involvement with the terrorists and drug dealers of FARC in Colombia, and its active links with other international terrorist groups, all of which is attested to by independent outside bodies and not only Unionist political comment, points to a real Sinn Féin agenda at total variance with its professed aim of healing our society. It is, unfortunately, an agenda of perpetuating strife. It is war by other means, at the expense of the heartbreak of citizens mourning their loved ones. How shameful can they get? How base can they become? There is an old Spanish proverb that says:
"Tell me who you associate with and I will tell you what you are."

Ms Jane Morrice: I have received one amendment to the motion, which is published on the Marshalled List.

Mr Eamonn ONeill: I beg to move the following amendment: In line 1, delete all after "Assembly" and insert:
"recognises the sensitivities involved on all sides in respect of the commemoration of those who have lost their lives in the conflict here, and calls upon the Executive in consultation with the relevant bodies, including the Victims Unit, the Community Relations Council, the Equality Commission and the Human Rights Commission to provide guidelines so that memorials of whatever kind conform to agreed criteria, and do not give offence."
I wish to explain to the House what my party finds inadequate in the motion. To begin with, the motion mentions
"the offensive trend of erecting memorials… by Republican elements",
when, clearly, it is not only Republicans who erect offensive monuments.
The motion goes on, in emotional terms, to describe in a one-sided way what we all know to be the suffering of all our people. My party finds that unacceptable. The motion calls on the Executive to take "immediate action". Our amendment acknowledges that there is more to the matter than asking the Executive to storm in and remove those monuments. That approach is not satisfactory, and, therefore, we cannot support the motion.
Our amendment advocates a more proactive, equal, fair and genuine way of attempting to deal with the problem. If we wish to solve the problem, we must come up with a sensible way to deal with it. That is why we have included the bodies and responsible people listed in the amendment. Our conflict has been unique. It is vital that we consider the sensitivities of all those who wish to remember their dead.
The SDLP has no general ingrained objection to memorials. The problem arises when those monuments cause offence to other people within or without a community. We have a sad tradition in our society of being offended by the actions of others. That is not the way in which the SDLP wants to see our community continue. A serious human rights issue is at stake.
To erect monuments in a manner that is not conducive to the pledges made in the Good Friday Agreement is to fail the commitment to peace; to insist on erecting monuments where they do not have the full support of local people is to be destructive of the Good Friday Agreement’s values; to erect those monuments illegally on public grounds and to ignore the implications is a clear disregard of the principles of the Good Friday Agreement.
Some time ago, a Republican monument was erected in Downpatrick without any reference to the council on whose land it was built. In an attempt to deal with the issue, the council asked someone to take responsibility for it. No one would. It is unfair to put a public body in such a position, and whoever was responsible had no regard for how it would affect others. The council, mindful of the sensitive nature of the situation, decided to deal with it step by step. It consulted the Equality Commission for Northern Ireland. The commission’s interesting response stated:
"Under Article 28 of the Fair Employment and Treatment (Northern Ireland) Order 1998 it would be unlawful for the council to discriminate in a manner in which it provides services. This would include access to council-owned parks. It is the Commission’s view that the presence in a public park of an emblem or display such as this monument, which is directly linked to the community conflict over the past 30 years, could be regarded as offensive by some members of the community. As such, the council could be challenged under the above Order."
The commission’s response also stated:
"Section 75 of the Northern Ireland Act also requires the council, in carrying out its functions, to have due regard to the need to promote equality of opportunity between certain individuals and groups. Without prejudice to this obligation, councils are also required to have regard to the desirability of promoting good relations between persons of different religious beliefs, political opinion or racial group. The council would need to consider whether the presence of such a monument could be perceived as marking out territory and thus inhibit the use of this park by all of the community. In our view there would be particular problems from a good relations perspective if the council were to allow such displays in its facilities."
That is a clear statement of the problems that unauthorised, illegal structures create.
A similar monument to the one in Downpatrick was then erected in the town where I live, Castlewellan. Planning permission was applied for. I asked whether it had been proofed against the human rights and equality legislation vis-a-vis the Equality Commission’s opinion that I have just quoted. It had not. The irony was that Sinn Féin members of the council — in a clear contradiction of their responsibility as publicly elected officials — supported that. It was a clear indication that, for them, party politics came before the welfare of the community. They have treated human rights and equality with total contempt despite their supposed allegiance to equality — they are interested in "themselves alone".
I said that I would support remembrances as part of the healing process, and that is the SDLP’s policy. I also said that I would have no objection to a monument that had the full support of the community, the Human Rights Commission and the equality agenda.
On a radio programme, I publicly asked the Sinn Féin representative for South Down, Mick Murphy, if he would join me in supporting a monument in Castlewellan to all those who had suffered and died in our area, instead of the one he proposed, and he publicly refused. What else can one say? He was only interested in a monument for "themselves alone".
If we want to deal with equality as an issue and an agenda to be followed, we must practise what we preach, and we must be seen to do it. There is no point in talking in lofty terms about equality while doing the exact opposite on the ground and, as I have said, treating equality with the contempt of which I have local experience. Therefore, in an attempt to deal with this growing problem it is necessary to bring all those agencies on board in order to get a coherent, sensible, fair and equal way of dealing with that.

Ms Jane Morrice: Now that I have a fuller picture of the number of Members who wish to speak — and it may yet change again — I advise Members to limit their contributions to eight minutes.

Mr Paul Berry: I support the motion. Individuals, communities and societies like to mark and remember milestones in their history, and that is accepted across the world. However, the misuse of that which is being undertaken by those who any civilised society would look upon as fascist thugs is unacceptable. It is akin to erecting a memorial to Adolf Hitler, whom Sinn Féin/IRA backed, or putting up a memorial to Myra Hindley after her death.
A civil war is not being commemorated — it is not a war in any legitimate sense of the word. Memorials are being erected to common criminals who have killed innocent people across the Province. They are being erected to people who are nothing more than vagabonds who have raped and pillaged their way across the entire community and country and murdered workers, schoolteachers, children, women, fathers and husbands in a dirty, grubby, filthy and rotten campaign.
Memorials have been erected for people who have killed the likes of 17-month-old Colin Nicholl and two- year-old Tracey Munn in 1971 — that was a brave act. It is repugnant to decent people that a group of brutal terrorists are commemorated, the sort of thugs who murdered George Saunderson, the school principal, in Erne County Primary School in 1974. My constituency of Newry and Armagh has suffered much of the brunt of Republican Sinn Féin/IRA terrorism — Kingsmills, Glenanne and other incidents have been mentioned today.
Anthony Nolan, an IRA activist who was nothing more than a common thief, accidentally shot himself while planning a bank robbery; he is some hero. Is he the type of person who deserves to be remembered? Bateson, Sheridan and Lee killed themselves while transporting a bomb to kill innocent people. On that occasion, the evil that they planned for others was turned on them.
Memorials erected to cowards who shot people in the dark and crawled up laneways to murder in the dark is not only repugnant and obscene, but a daily affront to everyone who went about their ordinary business decade after decade while those gangsters and hoods did everything possible to murder them in their beds or at work. That is what is being glorified across this country. If we were to erect a memorial to every citizen, soldier and policeman murdered by those thugs, there would not be enough land for them all.
What makes those shrines offensive is the glorification of violence and bloodshed. They are tasteless, tactless and obscene. However, what do we expect from IRA/Sinn Féin? In contrast, the memorial to the nine civilians who were murdered on the Shankill Road consists of a street lamp.
My constituency of Newry and Armagh has borne much of the brunt of IRA terrorism. Outside Belfast, Armagh has had the highest number of deaths. Republicans were responsible for 2,140 of the 3,636 deaths in Northern Ireland up to 1999 — around 60% of those murders. They are responsible for all the deaths, because there would have been no deaths but for them. The Assembly must not forget that for every two Protestants that the IRA killed they also murdered one Roman Catholic.
Whom did those heroes murder? People like Frank Murphy, who was murdered while driving a school bus for Drumsallen Primary School outside Armagh; William Elliott, a post office inspector; Henry Dickson, a train driver; and Tracy Doak. I am sure that none of us can forget the 1995 documentary about Tracy entitled ‘No Time to Say Goodbye’. There is not enough paper to record the pain and anguish caused by Republican terrorists. It is, therefore, morally repugnant to remember any of those murderers. The Executive and the Minister of the Environment must take action.
The Assembly must do something to represent the innocent victims: people from both sides of the community who have suffered so much at the hands of terrorists; people who across the Province went about their daily duties and worked to the best of their abilities to look after their families and friends. They were stopped with such cowardice by terrorists across Northern Ireland. I speak to many victims who find it soul-destroying to see those memorials and to see terrorists being glorified for the bloodshed and violence that they caused across the community. Action must be taken to deal with those memorials; the relevant Department must remove them immediately.
I listened to Mr ONeill with interest. He stated that he would not support the motion. That is a matter of grave concern. It was of greater concern that he suggested that all victims’ names could be on the same monument when he spoke about Downpatrick. I assure the House that the victims that I have spoken to do not, in any way, want their loved ones’ names beside those of the murderers who carried out such cowardly attacks. I state that clearly.
Action must be taken on behalf of all innocent people who suffered at the hands of terrorists. The motion is about Republican terrorists who have caused so much distress and anguish and who committed many murders across the Province. The last thing that the DUP wants to see is them being glorified for the terrorist, cowardly, bloodthirsty acts that they have carried out throughout the Province during the past 30 years.

Mr Gerry McHugh: Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. The motion is lopsided: it covers only one side of the story, which is no more than one would expect. Mr Foster is one of the movers of the motion. It seems that he has gone back into councillor mode. He was in that mode the last time that I remember being in such a debate with him. He is obviously spoiling for such a debate.
The amendment says that memorials should "conform" to agreed criteria. What are those criteria? However, there is not as much to argue against in the amendment as there is in the motion. No one to whom equality is important could support the motion. It does not reflect how the Assembly should approach the issue of memorials. The arguments presented so far are not the way to deal with the memorials issue. They can only make matters much worse.
The number of attacks on Republican memorials in Fermanagh and other areas is proof that all we can do is make the situation much worse. Paint has been poured on monuments and cars have been set on fire. One Unionist councillor asked that all monuments be blown to bits — so much for his signature to using non-violent methods. His words were followed by an attack on a monument the following night. There has been one attack only on British war memorials in Moy. If I am wrong, perhaps someone can put me right on that.
It has not been a two-way process. The motion is about one side; it is only about seeing victims as being on one side. That has been the argument on everything relating to victims. We often hear about the conflict of the past 30 years. Anybody who knows his history knows that the reasons behind the conflict go back to the inception of this particular statelet and the way that it was run from the start. Nationalists were entirely left out of the picture and had no part in ruling this part of Ireland. That is the backdrop for all this. It has nothing to do with the past 30 years in particular.
One need only go to any town or village, however small, in the North to see British war memorials in every one. Most of them cost a sizeable amount of money. Recently, £19,000 was spent in Enniskillen to just update the names on a memorial. We in Fermanagh District Council did not oppose that. Who was consulted about the original cenotaphs? Whose permission was asked? Did the original Stormont Government give permission for the erection of those cenotaphs?
Republicans have a right to pay tribute to, and commemorate, their dead like anyone else. There has been conflict over the past 30 years, but, as I said, the conflict has gone on much longer than that. That conflict, as with all wars, was bitter. There is no such thing as clean fighting in a war, despite what the Member opposite almost implied. We need only remember the rape and plunder committed by Cromwell in his early years in Ireland. [Interruption].
It is a reality. The Members opposite seem to have a difficulty in hearing the truth. However, it is the truth, and that is why it hurts. War is war. War was the same wherever it occurred.

Mr Sam Foster: On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. Does Mr McHugh equate murder with war? Is he condoning the murders that have been committed over the years?

Ms Jane Morrice: I consider that to be an intervention, not a point of order. The Member may wish to respond.

Mr Gerry McHugh: The British security forces, in collusion with Loyalists, murdered Nationalists on many occasions. Louis Leonard was murdered in his butcher’s shop in Derrylin in 1972. That involved collusion with the security forces. Michael Naan and Andrew Murray were killed in south Fermanagh as part of the pitchfork murders. They were killed by security forces — by soldiers in British regiments, who later admitted it.
There were many other murders in that area. Patsy Kelly from Trillick is one example. There have been many accusations as to which element of the British security forces was responsible for that murder. No one has ever admitted to it. Those are only a few of the murders. Nationalists were murdered, but there seems to be no agreement —

Mr Sam Foster: Will the Member give way?

Mr Gerry McHugh: I need to use whatever time I have left, given that we have only eight minutes to speak.
We have always been prepared to acknowledge that there has been hurt on both sides and that there is no monopoly on suffering and pain. Gerry Adams has consistently told Unionists that Sinn Féin, through the peace process, wants to move to a different position. This type of debate does not encourage that.
Observers can only be encouraged by Unionists’ asking in the Assembly for something completely different for Nationalists and Republicans who want to honour their dead. This is not for their glorification; this is done simply because they believe they have that right. I agree. Most Nationalists and Republicans quietly put up memorials as a mark of respect, a tribute to their dead, to volunteers who gave their lives for a struggle they believed to be right. They were right. They gave their lives for the right reasons, as did anyone who fought in the British wars. Those people believed that they fought for an honourable cause, and that should be recognised by all sides. Unionists especially should not beat the drum that they are the only ones who are right.
Mayhem and slaughter are seen as the backdrop to history in any country in the world where Britain ruled. I am sure that most Unionists here know their history very well, but perhaps they pick and choose the parts to remember. Most Nationalists, however, know their history exactly. We have had 800 years of history here, and we do not need to be told it. The future position of Nationalists must be based on equality. Éamonn ONeill referred to picking and choosing someone to make a particular statement on a monument in his town. We cannot do that. For the conflict to cease, we must go forward on the basis that everyone has a right to honour his dead.

Mr Norman Boyd: I want to place on record my opposition to the erection of illegal memorials by Republicans. Those so-called memorials are deliberately provocative. They are designed to mark out territory and further insult the innocent victims of IRA terrorism. In respect of the SDLP amendment, the distinction between innocent victims, both Protestant and Catholic, and those who set out to destroy lives and property must be clear. It is insulting and disgraceful that some in the Assembly and in the community refer to terrorists and their families as victims when they set out deliberately to plan and execute heinous acts of terrorism that resulted in innocent victims. It is disgraceful that Republicans in the Chamber treat with contempt those gallant Protestants and Catholics who fought side by side and died in wars, including the world wars.
It is a scandal that terrorist families have received Government support and funding, while many innocent victims, including those who laid down their lives in defence of freedom and democracy, have received no compensation and are not even permitted to honour their loved ones. Mrs Thelma Johnston’s son David was in the RUC. He was brutally murdered by the Provisional IRA on 16 June 1997 in Lurgan, shot in the back by cowardly scum while serving the whole community. A committee of Belfast City Council recently refused Mrs Johnston permission to lay a wreath on behalf of those brave members of the security forces who had laid down their lives. I hope that those gullible and disgraceful Presbyterians who yesterday embraced Alex Maskey of Sinn Féin/IRA meet the innocent victims of Republican terrorism.
Throughout Northern Ireland, however, many illegal memorials are erected by Republican terrorists. It is a disgrace that many councils turn a blind eye to that and refuse to demolish or remove them. Many of those memorials are strategically placed to cause maximum hurt and pain. They are placed on main roads, close to where many members of the security forces and others were murdered and maimed. It is disgusting that some councils, such as Newry and Mourne District Council, maintain memorials to Republican terrorists.
It is disgraceful that Londonderry city council claimed ignorance of the statue of an INLA terrorist armed with a rifle that was erected in a Londonderry cemetery. The INLA is responsible for some of the worst terrorist atrocities, including the Darkley massacre in south Armagh; the murder of 17 people in the Ballykelly bomb in County Londonderry; the murder of the Conservative Party’s Northern Ireland spokesman, Airey Neave MP; and the murders of many other innocent people. Many other Republican memorials have been erected illegally in Northern Ireland, causing heartache for many innocent victims.
My problem with the motion is that it calls for the Executive to take action. The Executive includes Sinn Féin’s Martin McGuinness, a self-confessed leader of the Provisional IRA. At a Republican memorial rally in Bodenstown on 23 June 1986, ‘The Irish News’ quotes the same Martin McGuinness — the so-called Minister of Education — as saying
"Freedom can only be gained at the point of an IRA rifle. I apologise to no one for saying that we support and admire the freedom fighters of the IRA."
It would, therefore, add to the hurt of the innocent victims to call on Martin McGuinness when he clearly endorses the Provisional IRA’s erection of illegal memorials to Republican terrorists.
The illegal memorials must be removed immediately, and ultimate responsibility for their removal should be placed firmly with the Prime Minister, Tony Blair, and the Northern Ireland Office. The Prime Minister is too quick to remove essential security installations, yet he refuses to remove the illegal memorials to Republican terrorists who were guilty of the most heinous crimes.
One of the worst reminders for the innocent victims of terrorism is IRA/Sinn Féin in the heart of the Government of Northern Ireland. I have spoken to many innocent victims, including some from the constituencies of the Members who proposed the motion. I call on the hon Members Foster and Kennedy to ease the pain of the innocents by removing the Ulster Unionist Party from the power-sharing Assembly with IRA/Sinn Féin. The placing of IRA/Sinn Féin in the heart of Government over the people whom they continue to terrorise compounds the hurt of the innocent victims of terrorism. The innocent victims continue to suffer.

Mr Boyd Douglas: I support the motion for two reasons: the memorials are offensive to the majority of decent people; and they are illegal because they were erected without planning permission. An illegal memorial has been erected in the village of Dungiven, three miles from where I live. It is supposedly in memory of the hunger strikers who took their own lives in the early 1980s, but it has caused much hurt to the family of an RUC officer who was shot dead within 50 yards of it and much distress to the parishioners of the local parish church, which is just yards from it. The church’s property has been damaged many times, and its hall has been burnt to the ground.
To add insult to injury, the eyesore has been erected on the only open space in Dungiven’s Main Street. It is across the road from Dungiven Castle, which was regenerated as a tourism centre using thousands of pounds of public money. There are those in the Unionist community who do not feel that they can visit that historic site because of the intimidating structure opposite.
People who have been deeply involved in terrorist activity in recent years but who now claim to be democrats have been elected to local councils throughout Northern Ireland. It should naturally follow that democrats should not only support and uphold the law of the land but should be seen to do so. However, it is clear that many who claim to be democrats are not. When I raised the issue of the illegal memorial at the council’s monthly planning meeting, the majority of the SDLP councillors did not support its removal and none of the Sinn Féin councillors was supportive, which was no great surprise.
The fact that the Planning Service has not taken any steps to remove the memorial is disturbing. Hundreds of people who pay due regard to the process and follow the correct procedures are refused planning permission. Understandably, they find it difficult to understand why others can build whatever they like, wherever they feel. I urge the Planning Service to review its policy on illegal developments and remove these offensive so-called memorials forthwith.
We can all recognise the sensitivities of people who have lost family members. However, with proper planning approval, there is enough space in cemeteries to erect appropriate memorials. It is incumbent on all elected representatives to ensure that these illegal structures are removed. I support the motion.

Prof Monica McWilliams: I shall address some technical points before I consider the more emotive issue of how to deal with this difficult subject.
It would be a good idea if the Executive were to consider the issue, because it will not go away. The Executive should consult the agencies that are cited in the amendment, and also local councils.
Depending on where memorials are erected, they are likely to cause offence. The Women’s Coalition is a cross-community party that is made up of Nationalists, Unionists and others. Since Jane Morrice and I were elected to the Assembly, we have tried to understand the perspectives of the opposing sides. We always question ourselves on whether our actions give due consideration to human rights. Are we being inclusive in what we say or do? We may get it wrong at times; if people are brought up in one community, they do not always understand what it is like for the other community. Do we provide equality of opportunity, or are we acting in a discriminatory way?
The test has been difficult, but the same test could be applied to how we remember the dead. The agreement states that there is a right to free political thought and a right to freedom and expression of religion. In this country political identity and religion are often mixed up. The agreement also refers to the right to freedom from sectarian harassment. Although we are debating memorials to the dead, and given the Minister for Employment and Learning’s earlier statement, I am concerned about the creation of murals that are dedicated to the living before they are dead.
I shall give you an example of how difficult it is for Departments to reconcile their responsibilities. If a memorial is built on public land, the Department that owns that land is responsible. Councils have had to deal with that problem. If a mural is painted on a wall, the owner of the property is responsible. Lamp-posts and street lights are the responsibility of the engineering and lighting division of the Department of the Environment, and pavements are the responsibility of the Roads Service of the Department of the Environment. I made many phone calls this afternoon, and it takes several hours —

Mr Roy Beggs: The Member referred to the Department of the Environment. Will she acknowledge that those responsibilities were transferred from the former Department of the Environment to the Department for Regional Development?

Prof Monica McWilliams: I acknowledge that it is completely confusing, and I am glad of the intervention.
One area is the responsibility of the Department of the Environment, and another area is the responsibility of the Department for Regional Development. It is good that the Executive may have an opportunity to address the matter. The situation is absolutely ridiculous, the height of nonsense. The Planning Service says that if a memorial is erected without planning permission and is considered unacceptable, it must determine whether formal enforcement action is appropriate.
I may not vote for the amendment. I would like to know who would be responsible for the enforcement of any guidelines that may be adopted. The Planning Service does not apply much enforcement with regard to what is being erected, or where it is being erected. The same Planning Service then says that there are no permitted development rights for memorials or monuments in Northern Ireland, irrespective of size or classification — there is no legislation in place. That may be something for the Executive to address.
Planning permission is required for the erection of any monument or memorial outside a cemetery. Inside cemetery walls is where they ought to be; if they are being erected anywhere else, they are offensive. It may be that local residents, depending on which community has the majority at a particular time, do not see them as offensive, but if we take the principle that we are dealing with a double minority, then the memorials will offend someone. The Executive should address the fact that legislation is not in place for memorials or monuments outside cemeteries.
I have listened to the debate, and I am disheartened by what I have heard. Ours is a damaged society — the conflict has been a terrible one — but until people get out of denial that there has been terrible hurt and desperate murder committed and take responsibility for that and commit themselves to doing something different in the future, we will go round and round in a vicious circle.
I have much sympathy for the Ulster Unionist motion — the issue needs to be addressed. Memorials are being erected all over the place, and those from the other side need to seriously consider what those memorials mean to people as they are passing by, particularly the relatives of those who have been murdered.
People who are writing sectarian scribbles on the walls of east Belfast should seriously consider how offensive and dangerous they are to people walking past them.
It is time to remember and to change. We are not ready to put up memorials around the country willy-nilly. The Executive should take the issue seriously — although no Minister is present to respond to the debate. When the Business Committee met last week it asked the Executive to decide which Minister would take responsibility. I see that they could not come to any agreement on that matter. Where does the issue go after we have debated it today?

Mrs Joan Carson: I support the motion. As I listened to Members’ comments I thought about canvassing in Fermanagh and South Tyrone, where we do not need memorials along the road. We can see the crossroads where someone was shot in the back; the tarmac patch where the bomb exploded and where several people were murdered. We cannot forget that.
I agree with Ms McWilliams that we have to look forward. Here we have an instance of coat-trailing by one side of the community trying to perpetuate the problem.
We have so many insensitive IRA monuments erected in public places, causing great distress to the families of people murdered by those named on the monuments. It is claimed that those named on the monuments were on active service. The term "active service" implies a recognised army or battle situation — not the actions of a sordid terrorist organisation that ambushed and murdered unarmed civilians going about their day-to-day business. The weasel words of "active service" are used to try to cover the fact that IRA members were actively seeking innocent members of the public to murder. Thankfully, many people were saved from further outrages by the security forces.
Remembrance is an important part of our healing process. It ensures that those who went before us, and their contributions to society, are not forgotten. We have monuments to the dead of both world wars, and I emphasise that they commemorate people from both communities. I am a proud Enniskillen person, born and raised in the town. I recognise people from all parts of the community. During the world wars, it did not matter whether someone was a Roman Catholic or a Protestant. People were proud to serve in the two regiments, and their names are on war memorials. Please let it be recorded in Hansard that it was not a sordid campaign.
There are memorials to the dead from both communities in both world wars. There are also monuments to tragedies, but our most common memorial is the headstone of the family grave. Those memorials are dignified and respectful, but to equate a traditional monument with that of an illegal terrorist organisation is repugnant and insulting to all ordinary people. The victims’ families have to pass such monuments on the roadside, and it brings back terrible memories each time. The pain endured by the families does not lessen with the passage of time. In Fermanagh and South Tyrone there are too many roadside IRA monuments.
I am concerned by Sinn Féin’s inflammatory actions and words. Its members involve themselves in public displays of contempt and hatred, which only further divide society. This is the same party that talks so much about equality and peace. A Sinn Féin Member from Fermanagh and South Tyrone stated in a BBC report that the positioning of a monument at a Belleek crossroads was justified. The same person admitted that those mentioned were on active duty. She also stated that the RUC and Royal Irish Regiment monuments were in public places.
Monuments to the Army, the RUC and the Royal Irish Regiment are kept in churches, graveyards, security buildings or on Government property. The only truly public memorials are war memorials to commemorate — and I say it again — both Protestants and Roman Catholics who died in two world wars. They are poignant reminders to the public of the terrible price paid for fighting fascism for the common good. The IRA is simply an extension of the evil that plagued the world more than 60 years ago. Churches and graveyards are a testament to the price that we paid to ensure that madness did not destroy our freedom.
If terrorist groups wish to have memorials, they should consider asking whether they could place them in the graveyards and churches of their own denomination or allegiance, where they will not cause offence. They should consider that; there are already some in graveyards and burial grounds.
All plaques, memorials and monuments on public sites require planning permission. I call on all the Departments to co-ordinate their efforts to ensure that these illegal memorials, with their pseudo, copycat trappings of conventional war memorials, are removed from our roadsides, forestry plantations and historical graveyards.

Mr Oliver Gibson: I support the motion. At times we have been guilty of missing the main point of this debate. I do not call these objects "memorials". They are wayside platforms for the promotion of the political activists who have supported terror in this country. This is another part of the IRA/Sinn Féin terror campaign. It is a form of political and institutional terror and a way of dominating the landscape.
Every one of these memorials, as they call them — I call them the political platforms for the activists turned political terrorists — are for the draft dodgers, the quartermasters, the suppliers, the finger pointers and all those who have been part of a unique campaign of genocide, particularly in the west of the Province. Let us not forget that the IRA strategists who control Sinn Féin have not changed their great ambition. They view this as part of their campaign to deliver a Republican, united Ireland. This is simply a stepping stone. We have seen how they have changed their tactics over the years.
I was delighted that Gerry McHugh admitted in his speech that it was murder; that is the first time I have heard a member of his party admitting that what was carried out was murder. However, he went back to the old Republican phrasebook when stuck for a little ammunition and talked about 800 years of British misrule. I will pose him some questions. Who murdered at the rate of 27 to one in the Irish civil war of 1921-22 — was it not the so-called Irish who killed the Irish? Will he tell the Assembly whether the 10 who were exhumed by the Southern Government and re-interred recently in Glasnevin Cemetery were pro-treaty or anti- treaty? Had they survived their jail term, would they have been murdered by their own?
It is interesting that Mr McHugh made one slip in all this, supporting the erection of terrorist platforms by the waysides so that almost weekly they could have another campaign to make sure that the Young Turks and the older troops would be ready, accessible and amenable. That is what they are about. Therefore I would never dignify the activities of the IRA and its campaigns of murder with memorials. My constituency has too many bitter remembrances of those occasions. I could mention Teebane and Ballygawley Road, one, two, and three — they are all multiple murders. Most people have forgotten Teebane. I could mention the Royal Arms Hotel murders, the Knocknamoe murders and, of course, the Omagh bomb murders.
This was not just a terror campaign of genocide — it has moved on to domination. Believe it or not, I was surprised at the SDLP, which has again shown tremendous weakness. That party is always urging us to take leadership and move forward. However, Éamonn ONeill said that Sinn Féin treated equality with contempt; that theirs was a "themselves alone" programme. Having admitted that Sinn Féin is all about "themselves alone" and that Sinn Féin treated equality with contempt, that Mr ONeill lacks the courage or wisdom to support the motion displays a terrible weakness in SDLP thinking
We must be wise to the real issue. Terror comes in many forms, such as the physical form of murder; there have been 97 murders in my constituency. It can also come in institutional forms. It can come in the form of the stoning of school buses or of quiet, insolent contempt for everything that is Unionist.
What threat is a small Orange lodge of 22 members to a massive Republican community? The church is in Carrickmore. Twenty-two local farmers and labourers going to a Sunday service — what threat could that pose to the massive Republican stronghold of Carrickmore? It cannot be tolerated; that is what Sinn Féin means by equality. Similarly, Mountfield is a Republican stronghold; out of seven councillors, it produces four Sinn Féin members. What threat would a wee Orange lodge of 27 members be to that community? It cannot be tolerated.
My time has run out. I support the motion.

Mr Conor Murphy: Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. I want to make a few comments. I agree with Mr Gibson that the places he mentioned present no threat to anyone. It is an absolute disgrace that anyone would consider them as such. The difference is that I can say that an attack on an isolated Orange hall is absolutely and fundamentally wrong and goes against any Republican principle. I disagree with that entirely.
However, the same people will never speak out about Catholic churches in east Belfast or other isolated Catholic communities that have been under attack. They will somehow always fall back on the notion that such attacks are reactive, that they are a reaction from the community to some greater misdeed that was done to their community. That is the difference. Isolated communities on whatever side should be allowed to live in peace. Mr Gibson, who has since left, should consider some of the actions carried out by people from his community and treat them with the same seriousness.
The motion’s tone has set the standard for the debate, which has been largely predictable. It shows how far we must go if we are to engage in any reconciliation process. Sam Foster spoke about people not having any honesty, integrity or dignity. He reverted to that type of language when talking about us. That struck me because the same people who share Committees with us here and who support the d’Hondt principle — that we will take the rightful places that we are entitled to by the number of votes that we receive — will walk out of a council meeting because a Sinn Féin member is elected chairperson.
There is a lack of integrity in Unionist representatives when they can do business with Sinn Féin and support the elections of its members in Chambers such as this, yet huff and puff in other chambers and walk out when Sinn Féin is elected. When we talk about honesty and integrity, we must look at ourselves first and foremost.
I agree with the sentiments of the amendment. Monica McWilliams —

Mr Sam Foster: When the Member speaks about integrity and otherwise at councils, is he referring to me?

Mr Conor Murphy: I heard Mr Foster’s opening remarks on the monitor. If I heard correctly, he questioned the honesty and integrity of Republicans and Republican elected representatives. In this institution, his party and Unionists support the right of Republicans to the positions to which they are entitled, and they have voted in support of that and d’Hondt. However, recently in Belfast City Council, members of his party, including Ministers who benefit from the d’Hondt mechanism, walked out of a council meeting when Sinn Féin got its just entitlements as the largest party on that council. When talking about honesty and integrity, one should look to oneself first and foremost.
I agree with the sentiments of the amendment. It talks about "agreed criteria", and that term is not defined. Monica McWilliams raised questions about the amendment. An agreed set of procedures for erecting monuments is something that we could go along with.
There was some irony when Éamonn ONeill said that the behaviour of Sinn Féin in Downpatrick was hypocritical because it flew in the face of supporting the equality provisions. The irony is that the monument was erected to an unarmed person who had been shot dead by the RUC. He was left to bleed to death in the street, and that was a breach of his human rights. However, the MP for the area at the time said that he felt that the RUC had acted appropriately in the action it took, in allowing an unarmed man to bleed to death in the street. That is a challenge to its support of human rights, which it has lauded over the years.
The Unionists who proposed the motion object to the erection of illegal monuments, and that is what the motion is focused on. On the one hand, I can see that that might be the case. A monument was erected in my village in 1991. Planning permission was sought, a lay-by was built and agreed by the Department of the Environment, and there were no objections from local Unionists.
However, when Republicans in Newry sought the agreement of the council some months ago to find a site for the erection of a monument to commemorate the hunger strikers, Danny Kennedy lodged very vocal objections, even though the people involved had worked with the council to try to identify a site and had located the monument on a site that the council had suggested, not one that they themselves had chosen. That begs the question: are people really worried about whether monuments are legal or illegal or about the fact that there are monuments at all?
Members have said that the location of monuments is insensitive. Gerry McHugh made the point that there are monuments to those who fought in the British Army in every town centre. From the roof of Woolworths in Newry, less than 50 yards from the cenotaph, the British Army shot dead three young men in the early 1970s. No one, as far as I am aware, has objected to the location of the cenotaph in the middle of Newry or has tried to have it removed. It stays there and people are entitled to have their remembrance. However, it is a monument to those who served in an army that murdered people on the streets of that town. Newry is a largely Nationalist town, and no one has objected to the cenotaph.
There is a tradition that people are sensitive to how remembrance is conducted. The media are all obliged to wear poppies in November in remembrance of the British Army, regardless of their political, religious or personal affiliations. I ask the movers of the motion how they think Jean McBride, the mother of Peter McBride, feels when the people providing a service to her are obliged to wear poppies to commemorate the British Army that murdered her son and re-employed those who were found guilty of that murder.
There are sensitivities on the other side to people they consider to be legitimate war heroes, as there are to people engaged in legitimate war on our side of the fence. All the sentiments expressed by Paul Berry could be expressed by someone from a Republican community about the RUC, the UDR or the British Army. They could all reflect the same sentiments of people murdering those who were trying to go about their business, who were innocent or who were not even involved in conflict. Murders have been covered up.
There is talk of sensitivity and monuments being located in sensitive areas. There is hardly a town centre in the North that does not have a monument to those who have fought and served in the British Army.

Mrs Joan Carson: Will the Member give way?

Mr Conor Murphy: I have very little time, and I cannot give way. However, I will address a point made by Joan Carson. There are monuments at roadsides as well as cenotaphs in towns. There is one on the way to Kingsmills, not far from where Danny Kennedy comes from, and there is one in Castlewellan to UDR members who were killed there.
That does not stop the Unionists who talk about sensitivity from travelling round the South. There is hardly a road or town in the South where there is not a monument to someone from the IRA who was killed during the war of independence. Nationalists and Republicans erect monuments in a different way to Unionists, who erect cenotaphs in town centres.
I have run out of time. We need to address a process of national reconciliation. Unionists seem to be fixated with the idea that they are right and that there is a necessity to prove that they are right. That means running down anything that Republicans try to do. That will not lead us to national reconciliation. I accept that we should be sensitive as to how we commemorate our dead. Unionists must learn that the commemoration of British Army war dead is a very sensitive topic for people on my side of the fence.

Mr Michael McGimpsey: I support the motion. I also want to look at the amendment proposed by Mr Tommy Gallagher. In it he talks about the need for criteria and referring the matter back to various bodies, including the Executive. It is important for Members to reflect that a criterion already exists; it is called the planning law. Any memorial requires planning permission, and the erection of a memorial without planning permission is illegal. Every one of the memorials that have gone up without planning permission is illegal. That is the law.
I have served on the planning committee at Belfast city hall for many years. Many Members are similarly aware of planning law, because they deal with it on a daily basis in local councils. Development, as defined in article 11 of the Planning (Northern Ireland) Order 1991, is:
"the carrying out of building, engineering, mining or other operations in, on, over or under land, or the making of any material change in the use of any buildings or other land."
"Other operations" is a catch-all term for any physical operation.
The memorials that we are debating are illegal because they do not have planning permission. The question then is what to do about them legally. Action can be taken by way of an enforcement notice against the person or organisation that erected the memorial and the landowner. That action is available to the Department of the Environment. Planning applications were not submitted for many of those memorials, and no one claimed ownership of them, which makes the enforcement process difficult. However, other action can be taken; the landowner has the right to clear his land of anything that people put on it.
The land on which many of those memorials have been erected belongs to Departments. The point has been well made in the debate that Departments have a duty to ensure that the law of the land and planning regulations are enforced. The issue is an emotive and a difficult one, but that does not excuse the breaking of the law by Mr Conor Murphy’s organisation in each and every one of those cases.
I have spelt out the criteria. There is no need for the amendment. The matter may be difficult, emotive and sensitive, but those are the criteria, and the process of obtaining planning permission and permission from the landowner must be adhered to. That is the way forward.
I support the substance of the motion for reasons that have already been mentioned in the debate. Sam Foster and Mrs Carson referred to the memorial erected in Belleek to IRA volunteers who carried out acts of murder. It is not located where the IRA volunteers died, but it has been erected at the spot where they carried out that act of murder. Two men travelling in their car were singled out and murdered by the IRA. The IRA/ Republicans put up a memorial on that spot.
Not only were the IRA saying that those men had no right to exist, which is bad enough; they are now attempting to say that they never existed, which is monstrous. That is the reason I support the motion. That act is not simply insensitive, intolerant or inequitable; it is absolutely monstrous. They are looking to eradicate the existence of those men by erecting an IRA memorial on the spot where they died. That is disgraceful and outrageous.
The place for memorials is often in graveyards. That is recognised by the authorities, because planning permission to erect a memorial in a graveyard is not required. Permission is required from the owner, which, in many cases, is the local council. The Republican plot in Belfast is a case in point. Republicans have the opportunity to erect memorials to their dead in that plot, and it is an appropriate way for them to grieve for and to remember those friends and family members that they have lost.
Mr Conor Murphy referred to war memorials in many towns in Northern Ireland. Those are memorials to the dead of two world wars — the two greatest wars in history, in which millions of people died, including many from both sides of the community in Northern Ireland and people from right across these islands.
Those memorials are different from monuments to people who set out to achieve a political aim that they could not fulfil by democratic means. An overwhelming majority of the population rejected those political aims, so the terrorists resorted to terror in an effort to achieve them. They failed, and that is why Members are here today. The Assembly is trying to rebuild society and to deal with its pain and scars. That will not be done by erecting memorials on roadsides and at inappropriate spots that cause great hurt to the community. A graveyard is the proper place for a memorial.
If planning permission and the landlord’s permission to erect the memorial were obtained, nobody would object; however, that did not happen in the cases outlined. The erection of a memorial in Belleek was monstrous. The only course of action is to ensure that the landowner and the authorities take the necessary steps. The attitude of Republicans, including those in the Chamber, is a formula for conflict.
Republicans are denying Unionists the right to exist. That is evident in the blocking of roads; for example, Ormeau Road was blocked during an Orange march that consisted of only two or three dozen Orangemen. Those Orangemen’s culture, identity and right to exist are being denied. They are being told that they have no right to be there. Republicans have still not learnt that Unionists have a right not only to exist, but to be part of a democratic and free society.
There is no case for the amendment, which should be voted against. There is an overwhelming case for the motion.

Mr William Hay: There have been extremely lively debates on the issue in council chambers across the Province. In the city of Londonderry in the early 1970s, the IRA decided to kill company directors, including the head of DuPont, who was shot dead as he returned from work by gangsters who waited for him outside his house. I know of other company directors in Londonderry who were shot dead by the IRA. The IRA, during those years, felt that it was necessary to "take out" the directors of major companies throughout the Province. The IRA has also murdered young children, mothers, fathers, sons and daughters.
For decades, the Republican movement has carried out a terrorist campaign without shame. In the Foyle constituency the IRA shot dead a young policeman and returned a year later and shot dead his only daughter. This afternoon, Members have heard about people’s rights. The Republican movement in the House has tried to equate terrorists’ monuments to cenotaphs throughout Northern Ireland.
In my city of Londonderry wreaths that were laid on Remembrance Sunday by many organisations have been torn apart and taken off the cenotaph two hours later on many occasions. We in Londonderry know all about Sinn Féin/IRA’s rights, as they call them.
We need to be clear about what the debate is about, and I know some Members equate those monuments to memorials in graveyards. A Republican movement took over a graveyard in Londonderry to erect a terrorist monument, and that movement stayed in the city cemetery for several days. Even today, many Protestants whose relations are buried there cannot go near it. The monument was so high that it was a total insult not only to the many Protestant people there but to many in the Nationalist community. I invite anyone in the House to look at that monument and ask himself whether this is about rights when he sees that monument towering above the other gravestones. A Republican organisation practically takes over a graveyard, threatens the people there and erects a monument, and Sinn Féin/IRA talks to us about rights.
In another instance in Londonderry it has taken over Roads Service land to erect other monuments, and, once again, it has used force. We can have all the planning laws we want, and the Executive can do whatever they want, but those people just take over areas in my city by force and erect monuments. Anyone who enquires about what is happening is threatened.
The problem in Northern Ireland — and it has been so for many years — is that terrorists are happy to threaten and murder people and break the law to erect monuments because they know that they have a weak British Government that will do nothing. There is a feeling among Republicans that they can do anything here, and if they want a monument on any piece of land, they will use whatever brutal force is necessary to ensure that it is erected.
I support the motion. However, I do not know what will happen now, given that there is still an armed wing that is prepared to take over land to erect monuments. There is a serious issue of law and order in Northern Ireland.

Mr Tom Hamilton: I say at the outset that, having listened to Mr Conor Murphy, I know of no spectacle more offensive and ridiculous as the Republican movement in one of its periodic fits of pretentious morality. I support the motion so ably proposed by my Colleague Mr Foster. There is a difference between graveyard monuments and memorials in places where the individuals who are commemorated are buried and monuments in open, shared places of public concourse.
Dublin, for example, has many sites associated with the 1916 Easter Rising. However, the Republican memorial is at the Republican plot in Glasnevin Cemetery. The city is not littered from one end to the other with memorials. Memorials in public places should command broad public support. War memorials to the fallen of forces that represented the legally elected Government of the day are one thing. Custom and practice have meant that war memorials have always been sited in prominent public places — usually town centres.
Monuments for the fallen of an insurgent terrorist force that is responsible for killing many ordinary, innocent citizens in a cold-blooded and premeditated way are offensive to most of the population. If such monuments must exist, they should be confined to the cemeteries and graveyards where those whom they commemorate are buried; they should have the appropriate consent of church authorities. Memorials should not be politically provocative and should not be sited in politically provocative places. It seems that Sinn Féin is hell-bent on deliberately seeking out sites that will be provocative and are designed to hurt. Such sites represent in-your-face Republicanism.
Ordinary planning rules are inadequate to deal with what is essentially a political issue. A judgement on whether a monument is aesthetically acceptable or in some way damaging to local amenities is not enough. Those monuments, by their very nature, are political statements. One is almost tempted to suggest that a solution might be to have such memorials subject to a body like the Parades Commission, because they have the same politically charged nature as many of the parades that are deemed contentious by some people.
Those wildcat memorials run deep against the healing process that Sinn Féin purports to espouse. They stir up hatreds, bitter memories, fears and feelings that we all hoped could be left behind. When considered alongside other evidence, such as Sinn Féin’s involvement in stirring up community strife in north and east Belfast, its involvement with the terrorists and drug dealers of FARC in Colombia, its active links with other international terrorist groupings — all of which is attested to by independent external bodies, not only Unionist political comment — all point to a real Sinn Féin agenda that is at complete variance with its professed aim of healing Northern Ireland’s society.
It is an agenda for perpetuating strife. It is war by other means, and I support the motion.

Mr Maurice Morrow: As my Colleagues have intimated, we will be supporting the motion.
I find the amendment quite offensive. It is despicable that the SDLP should use this opportunity to try to cover again for Sinn Féin/IRA. It is also most regrettable that the Minister of the Environment is not here. Whether he has full or partial responsibility, he should be speaking in this debate, but this is not the first time that that Minister has held the House in contempt, and we know that.
I am quite offended at the SDLP’s attempt to amend the motion. Its amendment states that everything after "Assembly" should be left out and the following inserted:
"recognises the sensitivities involved on all sides in respect of the commemoration of those who have lost their lives in the conflict here,".
If ever there were a misnomer, a misuse and abuse of a word, it is the use of the word "conflict". That is highly offensive and insulting. In Northern Ireland, a bunch of hoods, thugs and corner boys became murderers, and that is now described as a "conflict" — it is anything but. It is highly offensive and insulting of the SDLP to say that this was a conflict. It was unmitigated terror, perpetrated by those who made every attempt to overthrow the legitimacy of the state. They have shown in the crudest, rudest and most fascistic manner their disrespect for everyone who does not agree with them.
Is it not time for the SDLP to come clean on these issues? Is it not time that the SDLP stopped giving cover to Sinn Féin/IRA? The time has come for that party to stand up and be counted and demonstrate in clear, unambiguous terms that there is clear water between it and Sinn Féin/IRA.

Mr John Dallat: What about the LVF?

Mr Maurice Morrow: I have no connection with the LVF. If you want to take me up on that point, I am happy to do so. It gives me no trouble whatsoever to condemn that group. I want no monuments to the LVF, and I hope that you understand that. That is not what your party’s amendment says.

Ms Jane Morrice: The debate will take place through the Chair, not across the Chamber.

Mr Maurice Morrow: The amendment says that that party feels that there is a place for these monuments. There is no place to elegise terrorists. I do not care from what side they came. Anyone who knows me in public life — you have not known me long, but you can visit my council and see if I have been ambiguous in my condemnation of terrorism, from whatever quarter. I do not put any ifs, ands or buts into that, as some Members try to. I want no monuments to any terrorists at all. I hope that you, Mr Dallat, fully understand that. If you need it written out in big print, I will do that.

Ms Jane Morrice: Order. I repeat that I will tolerate a certain amount of cross-chat, but the debate will take place through the Chair and not across the Chamber.

Mr Maurice Morrow: The brutal campaign of terrorism that has been waged over the past 30 years in Northern Ireland must not be glorified in the monuments that are being erected willy-nilly across the country.
They are intended to offend and insult, and that is what they do. They are intended to carry on the war by another means. As has been said, our graveyards are a poignant testimony to what has gone on here for the past 30 years. We do not have to walk far from the Chamber to find the first monument to terrorism. Step out through the Door of the Chamber and on the right-hand side are two memorial inscriptions dedicated to three innocent people who were done to death by Sinn Féin/IRA. Cross the Great Hall to the Senate, where there was a service recently, and there are memorial inscriptions to Senator Paddy Wilson of the SDLP and Senator Jack Barnhill from Strabane, both brutally done to death. It is right and fitting that their memories should be lasting. I appreciate and applaud the fact that there are memorials by which to remember those two gentlemen. I understand that there will soon be another inscription to remind us of what happened. I am not selective in my condemnation, nor as to who should be commemorated.
Do we need to be reminded of the Shankill Road fish shop, Teebane, Kingsmills, La Mon, Enniskillen, Omagh, Glenanne, the Ballygawley-Omagh road, Ballykelly, Narrow Water or Darkley Pentecostal Church? Those are but a few of the atrocities that we have had to live with and to endure, not to mention the gunning down of many individuals who were going to or coming from work, were at their place of work or were working on their farms.
Sinn Féin/IRA claims to represent working-class people. I am working class. I am neither proud nor ashamed of that. The vast majority of people who were gunned down were working class, trying to earn a living from a hard day’s work. Yet those people were seen as legitimate targets and were done to death. Some of them could not afford to buy a car and, as they cycled to work to earn a living in order to bring up their families, the people on the opposite Benches, who are associated with SinnFéin/IRA, gunned them to death. Yet these are the very people we are told must be remembered.
Another justice was meted out in my town at the weekend. I could go on and on, but my time is up. I support the motion.

Mr Tommy Gallagher: I want to deal with a comment from the member for West Tyrone, Oliver Gibson, who referred to a weakness in the SDLP in tabling an amendment. An amendment that recognises that there are sensitivities on both sides of the community is not a sign of weakness. On the contrary, it is a sign both of leadership and a readiness to take up the challenge of dealing with difficult issues. In relation —

Mr Oliver Gibson: Will the Member give way?

Mr Tommy Gallagher: I will not give way. If Maurice Morrow takes offence from an amendment that recognises that there is hurt and grief on all sides, such comments from an elected representative are an indication that some people in this society have a very long way to travel.
The amendment deals with the problem of memorials and monuments in a logical and sensible way. The motion will not.
The proposer of the motion and the Minister of Culture, Arts and Leisure referred to the required planning permission for the monuments. Monuments have been erected regardless of planning permission, and, if this motion were passed and the monuments taken down, experience tells us that they would be erected again. Therefore, the amendment, not the motion, will address the problem. If the amendment is passed, it will ensure that the Executive, following consultation, will implement fair and workable guidelines.
It is four years since the Good Friday Agreement, and in that period many people throughout the island, especially in the North of Ireland, have experienced real improvements in their lives. That, however, has not been the case for everyone. There are many bereaved families on both sides, and they must endure daily the pain and loss of a loved one. For them, the relative peace brought by the Good Friday Agreement does not assuage the pain of their loss. Instead, it has brought a heightened awareness and a deep sense of the futility of a conflict that robbed so many of life. For some bereaved families, it is essential to remember the past and to have commemoration rituals.
The amendment recognises each side’s need to remember its dead and to commemorate the past. As Members know, a problem arises if monuments are erected in a manner or at a location that offends or hurts others. That is why the erection of the monument to dead IRA men in Belleek, where I live, has become so controversial. The IRA men whom it commemorates were killed many miles from Belleek, but the monument is on the very spot where that organisation murdered two Protestant workmen. The memorial has caused hurt to the families of those workmen and has met with strong disapproval in the local community. For the benefit of those Members who might support the motion, representatives of one of those Protestant families, the Hassard family, have said publicly that they have no problem with Republicans’ commemorating their dead. However, they are hurt by the insensitive way in which the Republicans erected the monument.
Northern Ireland has many memorials and monuments, some of which were mentioned, and some of which are controversial. Controversy is inevitable when a divided and hurt community bitterly remembers its dead. It will take time for those memories to fade. It has taken time in every other country that has experienced a conflict such as ours. In the Republic of Ireland, it took 70 years before the civil war could be remembered with a national day of commemoration. No healing can take place while memorials are hijacked for political purposes and there is a complete lack of understanding of the pain and hurt experienced in the other community. With the amendment, we can find a way to undo the damage that has been caused by the erection of some memorials and the way in which the issue has been handled.
My Colleague from Fermanagh and South Tyrone and Conor Murphy asked about the criteria. The criteria have not been drawn up.
However, we know from the consultation outlined in the amendment that criteria will be included that are based on fairness and equality. Ms McWilliams raised the genuine point about who will enforce the criteria, and we need answers to that. I have no doubt that when the Executive are given time to complete their consultations, they will give us answers. However, they must first be allowed to begin those consultations, and the only way in which that they can do that is if we pass the amendment. I ask Members to support the amendment.

Mr Oliver Gibson: On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. Is there anywhere in Northern Ireland that supplies yellow marble?

Mr Danny Kennedy: Mr Deputy Speaker, I apologise to you for my non-attendance at the beginning of this important debate. I also apologise to Members and to those who participated earlier. I would also like to record an apology to my co-sponsor, Mr Foster, and thank him for his contribution. Unfortunately other business prevented me from attending, but I am grateful that there have been several contributions. I particularly want to thank those who agreed with the motion.
In recent months and years we have witnessed a determined campaign by Republicans to create memorials in the Northern Ireland landscape that offend decent, law-abiding and God-fearing people. The memorials are placed deliberately and provocatively close to commercial centres and places where people are known to gather. They honour individuals who may at best be described as highly dubious, but more accurately as bloodthirsty murderers.
The groups that erect the memorials do not care about the real emotions of the relatives and friends of those who lost their lives to the so-called Irish patriots whom the statues honour. It often seems that determined efforts are made to maximise the victims’ hurt by placing the memorials close to the scenes of the atrocities that those so-called heroes carried out, and we heard evidence of that earlier in the debate.
Those who erect such memorials should be condemned, deplored and exposed as sectarian coat-trailers of the worst kind. I draw a distinction, and right-minded people draw the same distinction, between those whose names are honoured on war memorials and other such tablets in recognition of their service to their country. They carried out their duty as members of the security forces or the emergency services against those who chose to wage war in darkness and to kill without mercy or pity for victims who were given little or no chance.
Memorials are being erected to Republicans in places that bear no relevance to the events that occurred. Recently in Newry, a new memorial dedicated to the IRA hunger strikers was unveiled in a public park. The park is owned and maintained by the local authority. Members of a well-respected local Protestant business family provided the park in good faith to acknowledge their contribution to their community. The imposing nature of the monument is one thing, but it is worth remembering that none of the 10 hunger strikers came from Newry.
Why should the memorial be erected there, close as it is to a Kentucky Fried Chicken outlet and adjacent to the major shopping centre in Newry? There can be only one reason — to offend and intimidate.
The other possible reason is that the erection of the memorial is proof that the unjustifiable Republican war is now over and that, to convince the grass roots that the partitionist settlement agreed to in the Belfast Agreement by Sinn Féin is worth having, with Stormont and Sinn Féin Ministers of the Crown administering British rule in this part of the UK, a few token monuments should be erected to keep the hardliners happy. How cynical can you get?
Whatever the truth of the matter, these monuments have no place in any decent society that wishes to move on from the conflict and war that nearly destroyed it over 30 years. Whether the monuments are erected in Newry, Castlewellan, County Down, County Fermanagh or anywhere else, they are unacceptable.
The issue is cross-cutting in terms of ministerial responsibility. In addition to the planning and environmental issues put to the Minister of the Environment, I am aware of memorials on land and property owned by the Department for Regional Development and the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development. Examples are the memorial on land adjacent to the Newry bypass, which is presumably owned by the DRD, and the new and impressive defence wall built by the Rivers Agency of DARD at Kilmorey Street, Newry, which contains a memorial tablet to IRA volunteers. I hope that the Ministers responsible will, on receipt of the Hansard report of this debate, take action to remove offensive objects from their Departments’ property.
I was gratified by Monica McWilliams’s acknowledgement that Unionists had every right to be offended by these memorials. I am grateful for the support of my Colleagues Joan Carson and Tom Hamilton and other Members of the House such as Paul Berry, William Hay and Oliver Gibson.
Conor Murphy seemed to think that Unionists were being inconsistent by objecting to the election of Alec Maskey as Lord Mayor of Belfast. The context in which Belfast City Council operates has to be remembered. The place was almost flattened by the activities of Sinn Féin/IRA during the troubles. Witnessing the activities of Sinn Féin/IRA representatives fostering, and continuing to agitate, civil disturbance in parts of Belfast, it is no wonder that Unionist members of Belfast City Council considered a representative of Sinn Féin to be unfit for the high public office of Lord Mayor.
I remind Sinn Féin that there is no correlation between world war conflicts, commemorated by memorial tablets and monuments which properly indicate service and sacrifice in a worldwide conflict, and the actions of terrorist guerrilla warfare, which can never be considered as war in the true sense.
Several Members mentioned the roadside memorials at Kingsmills and Teebane. Those are memorials to innocent workers and victims who were mercilessly murdered and who therefore have the right to be remembered.
I reject the SDLP’s amendment. Once again, the SDLP is trying to cover for Sinn Féin on this issue, which is regrettable. Mr Gallagher asked that guidelines be provided. The best guidelines would be provided by the Planning Service and the Departments, whose Ministers should not allow the erection of such monuments on Government property.
Question put,
The Assembly divided: Ayes 20; Noes 32.
Ayes
Alex Attwood, P J Bradley, Joe Byrne, Annie Courtney, John Dallat, Mark Durkan, Sean Farren, John Fee, Tommy Gallagher, Denis Haughey, Joe Hendron, Patricia Lewsley, Alban Maginness, Alasdair McDonnell, Gerry McHugh, Pat McNamee, Francie Molloy, Conor Murphy, Dara O’Hagan, John Tierney.
Noes
Ian Adamson, Fraser Agnew, Roy Beggs, Billy Bell, Paul Berry, Esmond Birnie, Mervyn Carrick, Joan Carson, Wilson Clyde, Robert Coulter, Ivan Davis, Nigel Dodds, Boyd Douglas, Sam Foster, Oliver Gibson, Tom Hamilton, William Hay, David Hilditch, Roger Hutchinson, Danny Kennedy, James Leslie, David McClarty, Alan McFarland, Michael McGimpsey, Maurice Morrow, Ian Paisley Jnr, Edwin Poots, Ken Robinson, Jim Shannon, Denis Watson, Peter Weir, Jim Wells.
Question accordingly negatived.
Main Question put and agreed to.
Resolved:
That this Assembly rejects the offensive trend of erecting memorials throughout Northern Ireland by Republican elements in memory of terrorists who tortured citizens of this state for decades by their campaign of murder, maiming and destruction and calls upon the Executive to take immediate action to remove those memorials which have been erected without permission.
Adjourned at 6.07 pm.